Saraswati Devi and Others vs State of Jharkhand and Another

Lakshman Uraon, J.—Inspite of various services of notice upon O.P. No. 2, he has not appeared either personally or by executing Vakalatnama.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

Petitioners have filed this criminal revision against the order dated 10th July, 2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahebganj in Special Case No. 8 of 2002 (Barharwa PS Case No. 127 of 1995) by which the learned Court below dismissed the application filed on behalf of the petitioners to discharge them.

The case was registered on the written information of informant Karan Soren who has alleged that he purchased one second-hand Truck bearing Registration No. WGH-6013 on 26th August, 1991 for which consideration of Rs. 1,50,051/- was settled. On 26th August, 1991, he paid Rs. 90000/- and on 14th October, 1991 and on 23th May, 1992 he paid Rs. 1000/- and Rs. 9000/-respectively. Thus, a total amount of Rs. One Lakh only out of settled consideration of Rs. 1,50,051/- was paid by him towards purchase of Truck No. WHG-6013. A sale deed was also executed by these petitioners in presence of the witnesses. He has alleged that on 24th March, 1992, his driver Latif was carrying sands which was apprehended by these petitioners and they forced the driver to unload the sand for their own use and seized the truck directing the driver to inform the informant that they would not hand over the truck to him. It is also alleged that all the documents relating to the truck were seized by them which was financed by agent Subhashish Bose.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the charge-sheet has been submitted by the Sub-Inspector, of Police after investigation under Sections 420, 419, 406 and 468/34, IPC and Section 3/4 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It was submitted that the Sub-Inspector of Police not authorized to investigate the case under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and submit charge-sheet. It was also submitted that the alleged occurrence took place on 24.3.1992 whereas the informant lodged the FIR only on 20.12.1995 i.e., after more than 3-1/2 years. The late information in lodging the FIR has not been explained by the informant.

It was also submitted that the petitioners have never entered into any agreement with the informant to sell their truck in question, nor they have executed any sale-deed. In course of investigation, those documents were also not produced by the informant. These petitioners purchased the truck in question on hire-purchase basis, Even if they are supposed to transfer the truck to the informant for a consideration of Rs. 1,50,051/- but in the written information itself, the informant has admitted that he paid only Rs. One Lakh meaning thereby he defaulted in payment of full consideration amount. As the truck was purchased on hire-purchase basis, hence the Financier has every right to seize the truck in default of payment of any instalment. It was further submitted that in the entire case diary, no witness has supported the case of the informant regarding his purchase of the truck. In course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied a case reported in Trilok, Singh and Ors., appellants v. Satyadeo Tripathi, respondent AIR SC 854, in which it was held that in a case when a truck is purchased on hire-purchase basis entered into between the parties the dispute attracts a case of civil nature. In this case, the informant, even though he handed over the truck to the informant which was purchased on hire-purchase basis, but when he defaulted in payment of full consideration amount as per his own written information to the police, the financier or the party who sold the truck has every right to seize the truck. If there is any breach of contract that attracts a case of civil nature and not a criminal case.

On perusal of the case diary, I find that the financier Subhashis Bose could not be traced out. He has not initiated any proceeding to claim the instalment amount or the truck. But these petitioners who had purchased the truck on hire-purcahse basis, supplementary affidavit (Annexure-3), from one Sardar Raghubir Singh of Durgapur, Vardhaman in the name of Smt. Saraswati Devi (petitioner No. 1). That has also been entered into the register of Registration Authority, Vardhaman at Asansol. When considered the case diary and the evidence available on record, I find that there is nowhere in the record to show that informant has entered into an agreement to purchase the truck in question or he has paid the full consideration amount. On the other hand, the documents annexed with supplementary affidavit (Annexure-3), show that the truck was purchased in the name of petitioner No. 1 Saraswati Devi from one Sardar Rabhubir Singh and in the office of Registration Authority, this fact was also correct. In view of this fact, I find that even if informant has paid certain amount of Rs. One Lakh, but the documents in the case diary are not available. He can very well take shelter of the Civil Court for refund of those amounts as he has failed to pay the full consideration amount of the truck which was settled at Rs. 1,50,051/-. These petitioners are the rightful owners of the truck as per the documents issued from the Registration Authority, Vardhaman. The offence seems to be pf civil nature. It will be mere an abuse of the process of the Court if this criminal case is allowed to be proceeded against these petitioners. Moreover, charge-sheet has been submitted under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act which was not investigated by the competent Police Officer who must be not below the rank of Dy. S.P. Thus there is legal defect also in submitting charge-sheet under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Considering all these facts, I find merit in this criminal revision which is allowed and the impugned order dated 10.7.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahebganj in Special Case No. 8 of 2001 directing these petitioners to be present physically for framing of charge against them u/s 420 and 468 IPC and 3(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is set aside.