Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 559 (JHR)

Umesh Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2022-05-05

DEEPAK ROSHAN

body2022
JUDGEMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant criminal revision application has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 21.04.2003, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in Complaint Case No.784 of 2002, whereby the complaint petition has been dismissed under the provision of Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. The prosecution case of the petitioner as disclosed in the complaint petition, inter alia, is that the complainant is an employee of M/s Gopalka Credit Corporation. The opposite party No.2 took 3 vehicles through M/s Gopalka Credit Corporation on hire purchase basis bearing Registration No. BR 14P 5874 (407 Bus), BR 13 P 1111 (Bus) and BR 14P 5754 (Bus) and a total sum of Rs. 17,17,031/- is still due against him. In spite of such dues, the opposite party No.2, in collusion with the other opposite parties, sold large number of parts including body of those vehicles and he did not pay the road tax etc., intentionally. Sakhwat Ansari (now deceased) was father of opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.3-Aahsan Ansari is Driver of opposite party No.2 and the opposite party No.4-Rubina Khatoon is wife of opposite party No.2. It has been further alleged that the opposite party Nos. 2 and 4 helped the opposite party No.3 illegally in selling the bus body and other parts of those vehicles without taking consent from M/s Gopalka Credit Corporation. On 16.10.2000, one of the vehicles was seized by the petitioner and information was given to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi. In terms of agreement, all arrear taxes were to be paid by the hirer and not by the financer. In respect of Bus bearing No. BR 14 P 5874, tax was due since May, 1999 and in respect of Bus bearing No.BR 13 P 1111, taxes were due since 1999 and so far third Bus is concerned, the same was changed into a Truck which was seized by the petitioner. Intentionally and deliberately the opposite party No.2 filed a false complaint petition being complaint case No.134 of 2002 alleging therein that a sum of Rs.25,000/- was paid to the petitioner. After seizure, the Corporation informed the Transport Commissioner by its letter dated 06.03.2001 and also to the District Transport Officer, Ranchi by registered letter dated 27.04.2001. Intentionally and deliberately the opposite party No.2 filed a false complaint petition being complaint case No.134 of 2002 alleging therein that a sum of Rs.25,000/- was paid to the petitioner. After seizure, the Corporation informed the Transport Commissioner by its letter dated 06.03.2001 and also to the District Transport Officer, Ranchi by registered letter dated 27.04.2001. A sum of Rs.2,43,101/- and Rs.9,08,354/- i.e. a total sum of Rs.11,51,455/- is the total dues lying against the opposite party No.2. The Bus bearing Registration No. BR 14P 5754 was given to Rubina Khatoon, wife of opposite party No.2 which was seized on 17.05.2001 but Rubina Khatoon has stolen away several parts of the Bus. The tax dues is Rs.1,80,000/- and the dues of the Corporation is Rs.5,65,576/-. In fact, the opposite party No.2 in collusion with other accused persons, misappropriated huge amount of the Corporation (Annexure-1). On the basis of such allegation made in the complaint petition, the petitioner prayed for taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 211, 406, 420, 379, 182, 384 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate recorded the statement of the petitioner/complainant and also two other witnesses who supported the story as disclosed in the complaint petition. However, the learned Court below has rejected the application of the petitioner for taking cognizance under Section 203 of the Indian Penal Code and therefore present criminal revision application has been preferred. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the O.P. No.2 took the loan to purchase a Bus from M/s Gopalka Credit Corporation and total amount of Rs.17,17,031/- is lying due. He further submits that the father of O.P. No.2 stood as guarantor and the O.P. No.2 and O.P. No.4 with an intention to cheat the financial corporation converted the Bus in question to a Truck in violation of hire purchase agreement. Further the O.P. No.2 misappropriated huge money and has also filed frivolous complaint being CP No.134 of 2002 to put undue pressure on the complainant. Learned counsel further submits that three vehicles were financed to the O.P. No.2 and the total dues were Rs.17,17,031/- and out of which only one lakh fifty thousand rupees could be recovered out of the scrap. 6. Learned counsel further submits that three vehicles were financed to the O.P. No.2 and the total dues were Rs.17,17,031/- and out of which only one lakh fifty thousand rupees could be recovered out of the scrap. 6. He lastly submits that the learned court below fails to take into consideration that each and every ingredients to attract the offence under Sections 406, 420 and 379 IPC were made out but for the reason best known; the court below did not take cognizance for the offence and discharged the opposite parties. 7. A counter affidavit has been filed in this case by the O.P. No. 2 to 5 wherein it has been stated that the vehicle in question was purchased under hire purchase agreement and the opposite party No.2 had entered into an agreement with Chandrakant Gopalka and as such the opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 are having no concern with the allegations and they have been unnecessarily made party in this case. It has been further stated that the petitioner was the employee of Chandrakant Gopalka and he was not authorized by any power of attorney to lodge the case against the opposite parties and as such the petition filed by the petitioner is fit to be dismissed on this score alone. 8. It has been further stated in para 10 of the counter affidavit that almost for same set of charges the employer of petitioner, namely, Chandrakant Gopalka had lodged a case being Kotwali P.S. Case No.110 of 2001, G.R. No.591 of 2001 under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code against the opposite party Nos. 2 and 4 before the learned C.J.M., Ranchi in which the opposite party No. 2 and 4 have been convicted, who later on filed appeal before this Court being Criminal Appeal No.280 of 2012 and the said appeal was allowed in their favour. As such, no error has been committed by the learned C.J.M. in refusing to take cognizance for the offence. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record it is apparent that the dispute, if any, is with regard to hire purchase contract. As such, it is predominantly civil in nature and cannot attract any criminal liability. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record it is apparent that the dispute, if any, is with regard to hire purchase contract. As such, it is predominantly civil in nature and cannot attract any criminal liability. The learned court below has taken note of the fact that the opposite parties herein also filed complaint against the complainant/petitioner which was running before another court for the same matter and thus, the Court did not take cognizance of the complaint application. The learned trial court has further observed that the complainant/petitioner who was employee of the finance company has financed three vehicles to the O.P. No.2-Adam Ansari and father of the O.P. No.2, namely, Sakhwat Ansari stood as guarantor of the said vehicle and in course of repayment of loan amount, the accused has given post dated cheque to the complainant. The Court further observed that the allegation against the opposite parties is with regard to selling of parts of the body and non-paying of vehicle tax. In this regard, learned trial court categorically stated that at the stage of enquiry, witness No.2 has deposed that the complainant has received the cheque of the entire dues and no cheque ever bounced. However, non-payment of motor vehicle tax is not within the purview of the complain case to see as to whether the accused had paid same or not. 10. After going through the entire order sheet it clearly transpires that the learned trial court has taken note of each and every aspect of the matter and refused to proceed. It further transpires that for the same set of facts even the opposite parties have filed the case against the finance company. Further, even the finance company had filed a similar case against the opposite parties in which they were also convicted. However, subsequently, they were acquitted by the appellate Court. 11. Last but not the least, the petitioner in the instant case was just an employee of the finance company, namely, Chandrakant Gopalka; as such, he was not having any locus to file a criminal case against the opposite parties. No injury has been caused to the petitioner and at the cost of repetition, the dispute, if any, is predominantly civil in nature and no offence under Sections 211/ 406 / 420/ 379/ 182/ 384 IPC is made out. No injury has been caused to the petitioner and at the cost of repetition, the dispute, if any, is predominantly civil in nature and no offence under Sections 211/ 406 / 420/ 379/ 182/ 384 IPC is made out. Thus, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the learned court below has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner/complainant to proceed in the matter. 12. Consequently, the instant criminal revision application is dismissed being without any merit.