SANTOSH KUMAR HIMATSINGKA Vs. SNOWLION AUTOMOBILES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Misc. Case filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the order dated 21-4-2006 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (East and North) at Gangtok in PC Case No. 1 of 2006 taking cognizance of offences u/Ss. 447/420/506/352/34 of the Indian Penal Code and directing issue of process against the present Petitioners.

(2.) As per the facts set out in the Cri. Misc. Case, the Snowlion Automobiles Ltd. (Respondent No. 1) through its Director, Mahabir Agarwal, filed a petition of complaint in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (East and North) at Gangtok (for short CJM) on 24-5-2005 against the Petitioners alleging, inter alia, that the Petitioner No.2 as Agent of Lexicon Auto Limited had entered into an agreement with the Snowlion Automobiles Ltd. (Respondent No. 1), (a company registered under Sikkim Companies Act) through its Director, Mahabir Prasad Agarwal. Under this agreement, the Respondent No. 1 which owned a Tata vehicles repairing center with parking space at 5th Mile, Tadong, agreed to provide space at their repairing center for parking the new Tata vehicles of the Petitioners. The safety and security of the vehicles so parked in the said premises was to be the responsibility of the Respondent No. 1. In addition, the Respondent No. 1 had also undertaken the job of conducting regular check-up and cleaning of the vehicles parked in the premises. For the services so rendered and the parking facility so provided under the agreement, a consideration amount of Rs. 50,000.00 per month was fixed. Pursuant to the agreement, the Petitioners started parking their new Tata vehicles in the space provided by the Respondent No. 1 from the month of August, 2003 and the Respondent No. 1 started rendering necessary services in terms of the agreement for which he had to provide four security staff in addition to service staff for ensuring security besides cleaning of the vehicles regularly. However, on 24-5-2004, at about 3.00 p.m. one Manoj Dutta, (Petitioner No.3) Sales Executive of Lexicon Auto Ltd. accompanied by two other persons whom he introduced as officials of the Motor Vehicles Department, came to the premises and told the staff of the Respondent No. 1 that they had come there to remove the new Tata vehicles parked in the Respondent No. 1's premises. Since Mr. Mahabir Agarwal, the Director of the Company was out of station on the relevant day, Mr. Biswanath Das, Manager of the Snowlion Automobiles Ltd., contacted him over phone and when he informed him of the purpose and visit of the petitioners to the premises, the said Mahabir Agarwal instructed the Manager not to permit the Petitioners to take away vehicles unless the dues amounting to Rs. 4 lakhs being the rent payable up to the month of May, 2004 had been cleared. However, in the meantime, several anti social elements were called to the premises by the said Manoj Dutta and with their help they forcibly removed all the vehicles from the premises under threats that any one who dared to resist them will meet with dire consequences and in the process some of these anti social elements also manhandled, pushed and slapped Mr. Biswanath Das. It was also stated in the complaint, that an FIR was lodged at Sadar Police Station regarding the incident on 9-6-2004 but no action was taken in the matter, and as such the complaint was being filed.

(3.) When the above petition of complaint was filed by the Respondent No. 1 on 24-5-2005, the Chief Judicial Magistrate (East and North) at Gangtok endorsed the same to O/C Sadar Police Station. Gangtok for enquiry and report. On 21-1-2006, S. I. Kalpana Dong, Sadar Police Station to whom the complaint was endorsed for investigation, submitted the report to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (East and North) at Gangtok. The report was placed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (E&N) on 3-2-2006. Since the matter was adjourned on the request of the complainant on that day, no order either accepting or rejecting the report was passed. On the adjourned date, i.e., on 21-4-2006, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate examined the complainant (Respondent No. 1) on oath and on such examination and after perusal of the documents along with the complaint found sufficient material to proceed further and accordingly took cognizance of the offence and ordered issue of summons against the petitioners fixing 29-5-2006 for appearance of the Petitioners. It is against this order taking cognizance of the offence and directing issue of process against the petitioners in the manner stated above that the present Revision Petition has been directed.