SANJAY KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner, being T.R. No. 499 of 2005, corresponding to G.R. No. 631 of 2003, arising out of Jasidih P .S. Case No. 170 of 2003, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar, including the order taking cognizance dated 10th March, 2004.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The allegation of preparing forged document is wholly false. The petitioner used to hire trucks from other sources. For that purpose he prepared the details of description of trucks including registration number, chassis number, names of the drivers of the trucks. He also used to keep the photographs of the drivers alongwith truck on the basis of the information supplied by the truck owner. The truck driver of the hired vehicle absconded with truck alongwith the goods to be supplied for which the petitioner had lodged the first information report, being Jasidih P.S. Case No. 205 of 1999, against the owner of the truck. He had also lodged another first information report, being Jasidih P .S. Case No. 15 of 1999, against the driver of the truck. Police after investigation has submitted final report in the said cases with remarks that it was a false case. Police tried to make out a case that the petitioner in connivance with the truck owners and others by preparing forged paper absconded with the truck alongwith goods loaded on it. It has been submitted that the petitioner has never connived with any person by disappearing with the vehicle loaded with goods. Thus, the petitioner has been falsely implicated and the cognizance has been taken of the offences illegally. The order taking cognizance and the entire criminal proceeding are, thus, unsustainable and liable to be quashed.

(3.) THOUGH the learned counsel for the petitioner tried to press the said factual ground, he failed to convince this Court regarding any illegality in the order taking cognizance and initiating criminal proceeding against the petitioner, on the basis of which the said orders of the proceeding can be held to be illegal, arbitrary or an abuse of process of the Court. The grounds taken by the petitioner are by way of defence and the same are factual grounds, which are required to be proved by adducing evidences in course of the trial.