The necessity of a preliminary enquiry under Section 202 for establishing the truth of a private complaint was upheld.

1.Heard learned counsel for the parties. By their consent, Writ Petitions are taken up for final disposal by issuing Rule, making the same returnable forthwith.

2. These petitions originate from a private complaint bearing no.2/2003, in which the Revisional Court has directed the concerned Magistrate to hold an enquiry in terms of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure . The petitioner in Writ Petition No.371/2020 namely Sangeeta, is the original complainant, whilst petitioners in Writ Petition No.414/2022 are accused nos. 1 to 3 of the private complaint. This is a second round of litigation. Initially the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint and issued process against all accused [nos. 1 to 5] for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The matter reached to this Court, upon which it was remitted back to the Magistrate with a direction to consider the same afresh and pass appropriate orders.

3. In turn, this time the learned Magistrate issued process against accused nos. 1 to 3 [petitioners of Writ Petition No. 414 of 2022], whilst complaint was dismissed against accused nos. 4 and 5. Being aggrieved, both sides filed separate revision petitions in which vide impugned order dated 12.07.2019, the Revisional Court has set aside the order of Magistrate and directed to hold enquiry in terms of Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

4. The petitioner – Sangeeta is aggrieved by the part of the order of the Magistrate, by which the complaint was dismissed against original accused nos. 4 and 5. Likewise, petitioners of Writ Petition No.414/2022, who are original accused nos. 1 to 3, were aggrieved by the order of issuance of process against them by the learned Magistrate. Pertinent to note that the Revisional Court has directed to conduct an enquiry, however, the said order has not been challenged by accused nos. 4 and 5, against whom initially the Magistrate had dismissed the complaint. This time Sangita is aggrieved by the revisional Courts decision of setting aside the order of issuance of process against accused nos. 1 to 3, whilst accused nos. 1 to 3 were equally aggrieved as enquiry under Section 202 of the Code has been initiated.

5. The facts can be set out in nutshell that the petitioner of Writ Petition No.371/2020 [complainant], had purchased a truck bearing registration No.MH-34/A-4755, by raising finance from Tata Finance Company. Accused no.1 her close relative had partnership with accused nos. 2 and 3, who were doing transport business. At the insistence of accused nos. 1 to 3, the complainant has assigned her truck to the transport company on condition that the firm would pay the loan installments and additional amount towards compensation. Everything was going smooth till the month of May, 2000 when Tata Finance Company had seized the truck of the complainant bearing registration No. MH-34/A-4755, for non- payment of installments. The truck was kept in the control of accused no.4, whilst accused no.5 was officer of the Tata Finance Company.

6. After realizing the said fact, the complainant deputed her relative Dilip Kapoor to verify the things. He realized that though the seized truck bears number plate showing registration No.MH-34/ A-4755, however, the truck was in worst condition. In order to verify the things, the complainant had applied to the R.T.O., who inspected the truck and found that the chasis and engine number of the seized truck was of another truck bearing registration No. MH- 34/A-4955, which was in the name of accused no.1. It was the grievance of the complainant that the accused nos.1 to 3 in connivance with rest of the accused have fraudulently exchanged the number plates