Mittar Kumar vs State of Haryana and Another

Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.—The present application bearing No. CRM-A 131 MA of 2012 has been filed for grant of leave to file appeal against the judgment dated 05.10.2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad, whereby in a complaint case, the respondents-accused were acquitted. Along with the present application, Criminal Miscellaneous No. 9290 of 2012 has also been filed for condonation of delay of 30 days in filing the main application.

Brief facts of the case are that the applicant-Mittar Kumar was a transporter. He purchased vehicle bearing registration No. HR-38F-8609 on hire purchase basis, financed by M/s. Shri Ram Investments Ltd. The applicant-complainant issued cheques against the scheme of instalments to the finance company. The respondents-accused allegedly induced the applicant-complainant to sell the vehicle in favour of Gian Chander-respondent No. 2. R.K. Sachdeva was the creditor of the applicant-complainant while V.P. Kheterpal-respondent No. 3 was running the business of delivery of the vehicle. The applicant sold the vehicle to Gian Chander-respondent No. 2 with the condition that he would regularly pay the instalments to the above said finance company from which the vehicle in question was purchased under the hypothecation agreement. Gian Chander-respondent No. 2 had admitted that he would pay 27 instalments of `800/-each per month to the finance company and, thereafter, the vehicle was transferred in favour of Gian Chander-respondent No. 2 on instructions and directions of R.K. Sachdeva. The said transaction was arranged by V.P. Kheterpal-respondent No. 3. The accused persons had deliberately not paid the instalments to the finance company and thereby cheated the complainant, therefore, the complainant filed the complaint against R.K. Sachdeva, Gian Chander and V.P. Kheterpal for the commission of offence punishable u/s 420, IPC.

After preliminary evidence, the accused were summoned. Pre-charge evidence was led and the charge for the commission of offence punishable u/s 420, IPC was framed to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

After completion of complainant''s evidence, statements of the accused in terms of Section 313, Cr.P.C. were recorded in which they denied each and every allegations levelled against them. However, no evidence in defence was led.

After hearing the arguments of both the sides, learned trial court acquitted the accused and hence the present application for grant of leave to file an appeal.

Learned counsel contends that from the contents of the complaint, the evidence led by the complainant and the material available on record would clearly point out towards the guilt for the accused, therefore, the verdict of the acquittal delivered by the learned trial court is bad on facts and law and as such the same be set aside.

I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the material available on record.

The documents produced by the complainant before the learned court below were only photostat copies. No witness was examined by the complainant to prove those documents. The applicant-complainant has failed to prove that the respondents-accused had induced him to part with the vehicle in order to make wrongful gain to them (respondents-accused) and cause wrongful loss to the applicant-complainant. The applicant-complainant had admitted that at later stage he learnt that without obtaining ''no objection certificate'' from the financier, he could not transfer the vehicle. He further admitted during the course of the statement that the original document through which the vehicle was handed over to the respondents-accused was not placed on the judicial file, therefore, the complainant had miserably failed to prove on record that he ever handed over the vehicle in question to the respondents-accused. Even if for the shake of arguments, the averments of the complainant are assumed to be true that there was an agreement between him and the accused-respondents then at the best it can be a case of breach of an agreement which will give rise to the case of civil nature. The alleged transaction had taken place in the year 2001 while the complaint was filed in the year 2005, i.e. after a gap of four years. No good explanation has been given for filing the complaint after such a long time. The parameters for interference by the appellate court in an appeal against the order of acquittal are absolutely different than that of the appeal against the conviction and sentence. If an order of acquittal is passed by a court of competent jurisdiction, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused strengthens. By now, it is settled that if from the perusal of the material and the judgment of an acquittal, two view are possible in such a scenario, the view favourable to the accused has to be accepted. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances of the case, no ground is made out to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by learned trial court, therefore, the Criminal Miscellaneous Application for grant of leave to file an appeal against the judgment of acquittal is declined. As a necessary consequence, the application for condonation of delay in filing the present application is also dismissed.