SHYAM SUNDAR JAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In both the applications, facts alleged are common and, therefore, both the applications are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) Cr. Misc. No. 4897 of 2001 has been filed for quashing the order dated 7-7-2001 passed in Complaint Case No. 630 of 2001 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur took cognizance against the petitioner under Sections 406/420 IPC, whereas Cr. Misc. No. 4899 of 2001 has been filed for quashing the order dated 5-7-2001 passed in Complaint Case No. 626 of 2001 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur took cognizance against the petitioner under Sections 420/406 IPC.

(3.) Facts leading to filing of Cr. M. P. No. 4897 of 2001 are that the complainant of complaint case No. 630 of 2001 is the registered owner of a commercial trailer bearing registration No. HR-38D-7740 which is used for transportation of materials and the petitioner is a transporter of different firms/ companies of India who uses to transport by hiring vehicles from market and the accused No. 2 of the complaint petition is a proprietor of company of Nepal. On 12-2-2001 the local representatives of the petitioner approached the complainant for engaging his trailer for transportation of mild steel C. R. C. A. coils from Mumbai to Biratnagar, Nepal. As the trailer in question at the relevant point of time was at Mumbai, the representative of the petitioner negotiated with the complainant for the job and freight charges were mutually fixed at the rate of Rs. 2100/- per M. T. Thereafter, the complainant instructed his trailer operator at Mumbai to place the trailer at the premises of the consignor at Mumbai. On 13-2-2001, 52,975 M. T. of Mild Steel C. R. R. C. A. coils were loaded on the vehicle of the complainant for transportation and delivery to the consignee in Nepal. In this connection, an advance of Rs. 75,000/- on account of freight charges out of total freight charges was paid to the trailer operator and the operator after having loaded the material proceeded to Nepal on 13-2-2001. The rest freight charges were to be paid by the consignee on receipt of delivery of the materials. It is further stated that in course of travelling from Mumbai to Nepal, the trailer of the complainant met with an accident on 7-3-2001 in the State of Orissa and trailer was detained there till 10-3-2001 and as such, the trailer reached its destination on 21 -3-2001. It is also alleged in the complaint petition that consignee found shortage of 5945 Kg of materials, on which the trailer operator informed the complainant who accordingly approached the accused persons and offered invoice of the short fall consignment amounting to Rs. 96,666.25 paise but the accused persons did not accept the same; rather the accused No1 instructed the accused No. 2 to detain the vehicle in Nepal and to realize the damage from the complainant and the trailer has been detained by the accused No. 2 at his premises at Biratnagar in Nepal. It is also alleged in the complaint petition that complainant is still ready to pay the invoice value of the material to the accused persons but the accused No. 2 unauthorisedly has detained the trailer and the consignee i.e. accused No. 2 is illegally claiming huge sum of Rs.11,92,258/- from the complainant on account of damage. It is also alleged that complainant on several occasions met the accused persons in order to settle the matter and even sent a pleader notice through lawyer on 11-5-2001 to the accused No. 1 demanding release of the trailer from the accused No. 2 and charging an amount of Rs.1,06,326/- towards the daily invoice value of shortage of consignment, but the petitioner instead of complying with the requirement of the notice, he replied through his Advocate by letter dated 25-5-2001 denying his liabilities and suggesting him to settle the matter of release of the trailer with the consignee-accused No. 2.