Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 18 (MP)

Komal Chand Kachhawaha v. State of M. P.

2001-01-03

S.C.PANDEY

body2001
Short Note This revision petition under section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order dated 15th of April, 2000, passed by Special Judge [under Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989]. Mandla, in Special Cast No. 21/2000 framing charges under sections 420 and 506-II of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (henceforth 'the Act'). The facts of this case are that the complainant Smt. Sona Bai belong to Scheduled Castes. She had made a report to the Superintendent of Police, Mandla to the effect that she had purchased from the applicant an old Mini Bus, registered as MIK 1457 for a consideration of Rs.1,68,800/-. It was stated that out of the aforesaid amount Rs.1,23,000/- were paid by her to the applicant on the date of purchase of the vehicle and the rest of the amount of Rs.45,800/- were to be paid in eight instalments which were spread over between the period 5.1.97 to 5.8.97. It was further alleged by the complainant that balance of Rs.45,800/- have already been paid by her but she was not in possession of any receipt showing the payment of that amount. In effect, the complainant claimed that she become the title holder of the vehicle after full payment of price of mini bus to the applicant. Despite that, the applicant Komal Chand Kachhawaha with a view to cheat the complainant took the vehicle on lease at the rate of Rs. 250/- per day for a period of one month and. thereafter, neither he returned the vehicle nor paid its rent to the complainant, and kept the vehicle with him with mala fide intention. The applicant wanted to take away the vehicle, in question, and, therefore, he committed an offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Alongwith the application submitted to the Superintendent of Police, Mandla, by the complainant, she had annexed a receipt of Rs. 1,23.000/- showing that she had paid this amount to the applicant. It appears that the complainant had served a notice to the applicant through her counsel Shri J.K. Pathak, Advocate regarding the fact that the vehicle has not been handed over to her. 1,23.000/- showing that she had paid this amount to the applicant. It appears that the complainant had served a notice to the applicant through her counsel Shri J.K. Pathak, Advocate regarding the fact that the vehicle has not been handed over to her. In the said notice it has been stated that out of Rs.45.800/- an amount of Rs.32.200/- has already been paid by the complainant to the applicant on various dates. She has further staled in the notice that she was thus, required to pay to the applicant a balance of Rs.13,600/- and after adjusting Rs.7,500/- which were to be recovered by the complainant from the applicant towards the rent of the vehicle. She was liable to pay a balance of Rs. 6,100/- to the applicant. The learned counsel for the applicant has placed reply to the notice on record which is Annexure A-6. The allegations made against the applicant in the notice have been denied by him. It was denied that he received any amount from the complainant. after January, 1997. It was claimed by the applicant that It was agreed between him and the complainant that in case, the instalmenls are not paid by her regularly, then the applicant had a fight to take back the vehicle from the possession of the complainant and, therefore, the applicant had taken away the vehicle which was never leased to him, as claimed by the complainant her notice. Apparently, the complainant's main case is under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code which is clear from the written report. The complainant had not mentioned in the written report that any kind of threat was administered to her by the applicant. It is subsequently, when she made a statement before the police. she came out with the story that owing to the dispute regarding the vehicle, in question, she was also threatened and was abused. The main question before this Court is whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant can be held to be guilty of an offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. she came out with the story that owing to the dispute regarding the vehicle, in question, she was also threatened and was abused. The main question before this Court is whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant can be held to be guilty of an offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The Supreme Court, in the case of Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and another, reported in 1996 (7) SC 6 has recently laid down that the Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can examine the documents filed by the accused person at the stage of framing of charge against him. The learned Trial Judge has refused to look into the documents placed on record by the accused/applicant Kamal Chand in this case, on the ground that, was not the stage at which the said documents could be considered. However, it is apparent from the case of the prosecution that the vehicle was under a hire purchase agreement as full price was not paid by the complainant and the balance amount was to be paid by way of instalments. Under these circumstances, if the applicant in order to ensure the payment of instalments, took away the vehicle in question. it cannot be said that he is guilty of any offence under the Indian Penal Code. He cannot be guilty of offence either under section 420 or section 506 II of the Indian Penal Code. The intent of the applicant was not to get wrongful gain or to cause wrongful loss to the complainant, but to recover the amount due to her under hire purchase agreement. Whether the amount under agreement was paid or not would make it only a civil dispute and would not cause a criminal liability upon the applicant. Even otherwise, if the applicant had taken the vehicle on lease and did not return it to the complainant she could approach the Civil Court for breach of contract, recovery of rent and damage. if any, or return of vehicle, in question. This Court fails to understand how an offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code was made out and the learned Trial Judge was not correct in framing a charge under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicant. if any, or return of vehicle, in question. This Court fails to understand how an offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code was made out and the learned Trial Judge was not correct in framing a charge under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicant. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that there was a civil dispute between the parties regarding the custody of the vehicle, in question. The complainant is now trying to involve the applicant for an offence under section 506-II of the Indian Penal Code which was not initially her case. All this is apparently being done by the complainant to bring the case within the purview of section 3 (1)(x) of the Act. In fact, the initial allegations show that there was no such dispute between the parties. Looking to the circumstances as a whole, this Court is of the view that it will be a travesty of justice if this Court does not quash the charges framed against the applicant by the learned Trial Judge. Therefore, this revision is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 15th of April, 2000 is hereby set aside. The charges framed by the learned Trial Judge against the applicant by the impugned order are hereby quashed and the applicant stands discharged. The learned Trial Judge shall pass an appropriate order regarding disposal of the property as a consequence of this order.