Dinesh Parashar vs Smt. Mithila Devi and Others

Anil Sharma, Judge

Arguments heard. Petitioner has filed this petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 21st March, 2012 passed by the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Dabra, District Gwalior in Criminal Revision No. 248/2010 dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 15th March, 2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dabra, District Gwalior in Criminal Case No. 219/2010 taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 420, 406 and 423 IPC.

Counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards the complaint filed by respondent No. 1 and submitted that complainant Shrimati Mithila has filed the complaint on the ground that her tractor trolley was taken on hire by the accused persons including one Hitendra Pratap Singh who is the son-in-law of the complainant. When the accused did not return back the tractor trolley nor paid the rental of Rs. 12,000/- she has filed the present complaint. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated as he is a friend of accused Hitendra Pratap Singh. It is further submitted by him that the dispute is of civil nature for breach of terms of contract of hire and civil suit should have been filed by the complainant.

Counsel for the petitioner, in support of his case has placed reliance on a judgment in the case of Hotline Teletubes and Components Ltd and ors vs. State of Bihar, 2005 SCC (Cri) 1515 in which it has been held that when at very inception of the contract between the parties there was no intention to cheat, offence u/s 406 and 420 IPC is not made out and the case is purely of civil liability; non-quashing the prosecution of the accused would amount to an abuse of process of court, therefore, the prosecution is liable to be quashed u/s 482Cr.P.C. Another judgment in the case of S.W. Palanitkar and others Vs. State of Bihar and another, has also been relied by the counsel for the petitioner on the same point.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has lay hands on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Krishnan and another Vs. Krishnaveni and another, on the point that after concurrent findings of the courts below, petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. In this case, it has been held that second revision to High Court is prohibited u/s 397(3) Cr.P.C., but when the State seeks revision u/s 401 Cr.P.C., the High Court can entertain it in a case of grave miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of court etc. by exercising inherent powers and supervisory powers under sections 482 and 483 Cr.P.C. respectively. However, this judgment does not mention that petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable where revision has been dismissed.

So far as facts of present case are concerned, there is allegation regarding non payment of rental and return of tractor. Furthermore, it is alleged that the accused have transferred the vehicle to some other person by executing an agreement to sale which is attested by a Notary. The Notary in his statement has stated that the petitioner Dinesh Parashar has signed the agreement. Therefore, the manner in which the tractor trolley has been transferred after taking possession from the complainant shows involvement of the petitioner in the crime and immediate transfer of tractor further makes the argument regarding absence of intention to cheat at the time of taking tractor from the complainant unacceptable. Since the petitioner is involved in transfer of the vehicle in question also, both the courts below are justified in passing order against him. No relief can be granted to the petitioner in this case as there is no miscarriage of justice. The petitioner is, therefore, dismissed.