Rakesh Raghuvanshi vs Rakesh Kumar Gupta

D.K. Paliwal, J.—With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, they are heard finally. This petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 2.1.2009 passed by Third ASJ, Vidisha, in Criminal Revision No. 243/2008 affirming the order dated 23.9.2008 passed by JMFC, Vidisha, in Case No. 1795/2008, whereby cognizance has been taken under Sections 341 and 392 of IPC against the petitioner on the basis of a private complaint filed by respondent No. 1.

Brief facts of the case are that respondent-Rakesh Kumar Gupta has filed a private complaint alleging that on 30.6.2008 at about 5-6 p.m., he was coming back from his workshop. Petitioner Rakesh Raghuwanshi met him near Government Higher Secondary School alongwith one person. They both stopped him, took out Rs. 34,000/- kept in his pocket and after snatching his motorcycle bearing registration No. M.P. 40-BD 4959, ran away from the spot. He lodged the report immediately at police Station, Kotwali, Distt. Vidisha, but no action has been taken.

The learned Magistrate has recorded the statements of the complainant and its witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. and thereafter took cognizance against the petitioner under Sections 341 and 392 of IPC as aforesaid.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that learned trial Court has recorded the statements of complainant Rakesh Gupta alongwith three witnesses. According to the statement of Rakesh Kumar Gupta, cash of Rs. 34,000/- was given by Sushil Verma at about 4 p.m. against advance of some work, however, Sushil Verma, says that he gave the advance of Rs. 34,000/- on 30.6.2008 to Rakesh Gupta at about 12-1 in the noon. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this material contradiction raises a doubt regarding complainant''s case. He further submits that complainant''s son has submitted an application for giving the motorcycle on Supurdginama, in which police has reported that Motorcycle bearing registration No. M.P. 40-BD 4959 has been left by applicant himself, i.e. Ankur Gupta who is the son of the complainant, at police Station, Kotwali, which is standing in the fences of police Station.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 as well as learned Panel Lawyer for respondent No. 2/State supported the order taking cognizance against the petitioner by the learned Magistrate.

According to the statement of Rakesh Kumar Gupta, cash of Rs. 34,000/- was given to him as advance by Sushil Verma on the date of incident at about 4 p.m., but this statement has been contradicted by said Sushil Verma saying that he has given advance of Rs. 34,000/- to Rakesh Gupta on 30.6.2008 at about 12-1 in the noon. This material contradiction raises a question mark regarding veracity of complainant''s case. From perusal of the report submitted by police Station, Kotwali, Distt. Vidisha, to the Court of CJM regarding application for giving the motorcycle bearing registration No. M.P. 40-BD 4959 on Supurdgi to Ankur Gupta son of Rakesh Gupta, it appears that it has been clearly mentioned that no criminal case has been registered regarding the motorcycle and the aforesaid motorcycle has been left by the applicant himself, i.e. Ankur Gupta, at the premises of police Station. Thus, again this fact falsifies the story alleged by the complainant. In view of the aforesaid, the continuance of the proceedings against the petitioner amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court. Hence, order dated 23.9.2008 passed by learned JMFC, Vidisha, in Case No. 1795/2008 taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 392 of IPC, is set aside.