SAJID ZEYA KHAN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution for the quashment of the First Information Report vide Dhanbad (Bank More) P.S. Case No. 422 of 2001 dated 6.8.2001 with consequential reliefs.

(2.) THE prosecution story in short was that the complainant -respondent No. 2 Puran Singh Chibb lodged a complaint case No. 526 of 2001 before the CJM, Dhanbad on 17.5.2001 which was forwarded to the Police Station for institution of police case under Section 156(3) Cr PC and accordingly a case was instituted as referred to herein above against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 420/406 and 379, IPC as also under Section 23 of the Hire Purchase Agreement Act. It was alleged in the Complaint Petition that the complainant O.P. No. 2 had entered into a Hire Purchase Agreement with Ashok Leyland Finance Limited on 7.12.1999 for purchase of chesis of a truck and the agreement was executed at Dhanbad Branch of the Office of Leyland on accepting, down payment of Rs. 1,06,000/ - (one lakh six thousand) from the complainant on the terms of repayment of loan on equal monthly installments @ Rs. 18,050/ -.

(3.) THE complainant further narrated that he got the Advocate's notice served upon the petitioners on 23.4.2001 demanding the true copy of hire purchase agreement alleged to be not supplied to him by them and also in respect of refusal to accept the cheques tendered by registered mail on 23.4.2001 amounting to Rs. 18,050/ - each with further allegation that the petitioners tampered the envelop carrying two cheques. Yet, the cheques were received by the petitioners in due course but without acknowledgement of the receipt. Finally, it was alleged that the complainant got another notice of the lawyer served upon the petitioners on 9.5.2001 and by the said notice the hire purchase agreement between the parties was declared void under. the allegation that fraudulent practice was adopted by the petitioners with false inducement to the complainant which caused wrongful gain to the petitioners and wrongful loss to the complainant/respondent No. 2.