UMESH SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The instant criminal revision application has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dtd. 21/4/2003, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in Complaint Case No.784 of 2002, whereby the complaint petition has been dismissed under the provision of Sec. 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) The prosecution case of the petitioner as disclosed in the complaint petition, inter alia, is that the complainant is an employee of M/s Gopalka Credit Corporation. The opposite party No.2 took 3 vehicles through M/s Gopalka Credit Corporation on hire purchase basis bearing Registration No. BR 14P 5874 (407 Bus), BR 13 P 1111 (Bus) and BR 14P 5754 (Bus) and a total sum of Rs.17,17,031.00 is still due against him. In spite of such dues, the opposite party No.2, in collusion with the other opposite parties, sold large number of parts including body of those vehicles and he did not pay the road tax etc., intentionally. Sakhwat Ansari (now deceased) was father of opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.3-Aahsan Ansari is Driver of opposite party No.2 and the opposite party No.4-Rubina Khatoon is wife of opposite party No.2.