SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(Pat) 617

High Court of Patna (RANCHI BENCH)
S.K. Chattopadhyaya, J.
Surujballi Tiwary – Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Bihar – Opposite Parties
Cr. Misc. No. 2383/95 (R)
Decided On : 20.9.1996

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the petitioners: M/s Pradeep Ghosh, P.S. Dayal & R.K. Marathia.
For the Opposite Parties: M/s Deepak Kumar & M.K. Dey.
For the State: Mr. K.K. Jhunjhunwala.

A criminal proceeding can be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if it is found to be filed with malafide intent and an oblique motive, or if the allegations against the accused do not constitute a criminal offence.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - SECTION 482 - QUASHING OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS - MALAFIDE INTENT - OBTAINING POSSESSION OF VEHICLE THROUGH CIVIL COURT ORDER - NO CRIMINAL OFFENCE MADE OUT.

Fact of the Case:

A complaint was filed alleging that the petitioners, including an agent of a financier company, forcibly took possession of a truck and cash from the complainant at gunpoint. The petitioners claimed that they were acting on the orders of a civil court, which had appointed the agent as a receiver to take possession of the vehicle.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the complaint petition was filed with malafide intent and an oblique motive to implicate the petitioners. The court noted that the complainant had not disclosed his parentage or connection with the alleged owner of the vehicle, and that the name of the agent had been filled in by hand in the complaint petition. The court also found that the allegations against the petitioners did not constitute a criminal offence, as they were acting on the orders of a competent civil court.

Issues: 1. Whether the complaint petition was filed with malafide intent and an oblique motive? 2. Whether the allegations against the petitioners constituted a criminal offence?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the complaint petition was filed with malafide intent and an oblique motive, as the complainant had not disclosed his parentage or connection with the alleged owner of the vehicle, and the name of the agent had been filled in by hand in the complaint petition. 2. The court held that the allegations against the petitioners did not constitute a criminal offence, as they were acting on the orders of a competent civil court.

Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the entire criminal proceeding, including the investigation, against the petitioners.

Judgment

S.K. Chattopadhyaya, J.

In this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (shortly the Code) the petitioners has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the investigation pending against them.

2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass: on 7.3.95 a complaint was tiled by one Moinuddin of village khairgaon, P.S. Sadar, district Hazaribagh against the petitioners alleging, inter alia, that on 23.3.95 when he was driving truck no. BR 13C 5547 with a cash of Rs.25,000/- to purchase coal from the colliery, petitioner no. 1 (accused no. 1) along with 5-6 unknown persons armed with revolver got the vehicle stopped. The driver was asked to vacate the driving seat by showing revolver with a threat to shoot him if the vehicle with its key including the papers and cash are not handed over to petitioner no. 1, Surujballi Tiwary. The complainant out of fear, handed over the key of the vehicle to petitioner no.1 and then petitioner no.1 got a letter written by one Mangal Pandey at the point of revolver who was there at the place of occurrence. Thereafter, one of the accused persons sat on the driving seat and searched the box and took out the said sum of Rs.25,000/which was given to the accused no.1. After that they all drove the vehicle away. It is further stated that on perusal of the letter the name of petitioner nO.1 was learnt who is an agent of petitioners 2 and 3 (Accused 2 and 3). The complaint petition further disclosed that the owner of the vehicle was one Ajay Kumar Gupta son of Sarju Prasad of Boddam Bazar, Hazaribagh who had already cleared off all the dues of the Financier. The complaint petition also discloses about some orders of Civil Court at Calcutta regarding which the complainant has stated that if there had been any order of the Civil court, the execution proceeding through the process of the civil court could have been taken but in the instant case the accused persons have looted away the vehicle and cash at the point of revolver and thereby committed serious offence. The complainant 'had gone to the police station but as except some constables, no police officer was available in the police station, the complaint petition was filed in the court. On such complaint being filed, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate directed the police to make investigation and, as such G.R. case No. 552/93 corresponding to Sadar Hazaribagh P.S. case No. 109(4) 95 was registered by the police.

3. Mr. Pradeep Ghosh, learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has contended that the complaint petition itself will show that it is not only malafide but has been filed with an oblique motive. He contends that the owner of the truck, Ajay Kumar Gupta is the hirer of which petitioner no. 3, Dulichand Finance & Leasing (P) Ltd. is a financier. There was hire purchase agreement on the basis of which said Ajay Kumar Gupta purchased the truck but, it is said, did not respect the terms and conditions of the agreement by depositing the instalments in time. The said award was filed in the City Civil Court at Calcutta and on the prayer made by the Financier, by order dated 20.9.94, the Chief Judge of the City Civil Court, Calcutta appointed Shri Sheonath Bhattacharya, an advocate of the court as a receiver was at liberty to appoint an agent for the purpose of taking possession of the vehicle. On such liberty being given, said Shri Bhattacharya appointed petitioner no. 1, Surujballi Tiwary as his agent and directed him to get the possession of the vehicle. Mr. Ghosh further submits that petitioner no. 1, in the capacity of agent of the receiver tried to locate the vehicle and ultimately got possession of the same from one Mangal Pandey at Mugalsarai on 23.3.95. He further submits that in token of delivery of possession, said Mangal Pandey gave a letter in which the name of Ajay Kumar Gupta has been mentioned as hirer. It is contended that under the aforesaid circumstances the vehicle
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top