Dinesh Chandra Joshi vs Ishaq Mohammed and Others

B.R. Arora, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order dated May 23, 1988, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mawli, refusing to take cognizance against the respondents No. 1 to 3.

The petitioner, on January 21, 1988, filed a complaint in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mawli, against Ishaq Mohammed u/s 379, I.P.C. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate sent this complaint u/s 156 Cr.P.C. to the Station House Officer, Fatehnagar for further investigation. The police, after necessary investigation, presented the challan against Ishaq Mohammed, and Hasan Khan for the offence u/s 379, I.P.C. After going through the papers on record collected by the police during investigation, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate came to the conclusion that the matter in the present case is only of a civil nature and he, therefor, refused to take cognizance against the respondents Ishaq Mohammed and Hasan Khan. It is against this order that the present petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the complainant.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and also the learned Counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 3. I have, also, gone through the record of the case, including the judgment passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mawli.

It is, no doubt, true that the dispute in the present case relates to the Jeep No. G.U.K. 9549, which was originally owned by Narain Bhai and was purchased by Dilip Bhai on July 16, 1987, for Rs. 50,000/-on an agreement to sale and a part-payment thereof was made. This jeep met-with an accident on October 18, 1987 and was seized by the police. Later-on, the matter was settled and some amount was paid. That amount was, also, paid by Ishaq Mohammed. The present petitioner took the jeep from the Court through Narain Bhai on October 19, 1987 and got it repaired and brought jeep to Fatehnagar. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the jeep was got transferred in his name by the District Transport Officer, Jaipur on December 19, 1987, and it remained with Mithusingh with effect from December 1, 1987 to January 12, 1988 when it was got repaired and on January 15, 1988, it is stolen and, therefore, this complaint was filed. The learned Counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 3, on the other hand, has submitted that on March 8, 1988, the Regional Transport Officer, Barodara, registered this jeep in the name of Narain Bhai and a Criminal I Case No. 2660 of 1989 (Narain Bhai v. Dinesh Chandra Joshi) Under Sections 406, 465, 467, 468, 471, I.P.C. was filed in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barodara regarding the fabrication of the sale-letter, in which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barodara, has taken cognizance against the petitioner. It is, no doubt, true that a criminal litigation is going-on between the parties but it appears that the question in the present case is of a civil nature, which should be decided by the Civil Court. The learned lower Court has not committed any illegality in coming to the conclusion that as the matter is of civil nature, the cognizance under the criminal law should not be taken and there is no material on record, on the basis of which the matter can be proceeded-with against the accused- respondents No. 1 to 3 for offence u/s 379, I.P.C. It has been held by this Court in: Allexdender alias A.D. v. The State of Rajasthan 1984 RCC 363 that in revisional jurisdiction, the Court should not interfere in the Order Under revision unless there is abuse of the process of the Court or the miscarriage of justice. In my view, in the present case, there is neither any miscarriage of justice nor is there abuse of the process of the Court. The order, passed by the learned lower Court, cannot be said to be unjust and improper.

In the result, the revision petition filed by the petitioner has no force and is, therefore, dismissed.