Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shivnarayan Hada vs Ali Asgar on 1 February, 2017
M.Cr.C. No.5920/2014 1
M.Cr.C. No.5920/2014
01/02/2017
Shri Vivek Shrivastava, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Jitendra Kumar Sharma, learned counsel
for the respondent.
This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'The Code') praying for quashment of order dated 25/04/2014 (Annexure-P/1), passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ratlam in Criminal Revision No.28/2014.
The learned revisional Court, vide the impugned order, by reversing the order dated
05/02/2014, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratlam in Criminal Case No.448/2014, directing issue of process in complaint case against the petitioner for offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 458 and 471, has passed an order of discharge.
The relevant facts, briefly stated, are that the petitioner-Shivnarayan Hada preferred a criminal complaint on 02/07/2013, with regard to offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 458 and 471 of IPC against the respondent-Ali Asgar, before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. The petitioner, in his complaint, averred that the respondent, who is a car dealer, playing fraud M.Cr.C. No.5920/2014 2 upon the petitioner, had sold to him a second hand Indica car of 2008-2009 make, bearing chassis No.611452 MRFZPF 0868 & engine No.100 A 2000- 0006185, for a consideration of Rs.5,51,200/-, including registration and insurance fee, by falsely representing that the same is a new car of 2010 make. It was further averred that the petitioner, later on came to know that this car was earlier sold to one Fakruddin Qaba and had also met with an accident and thereafter was resold to the petitioner, falsely representing the same as a new one. Allegedly, in this regard, documents of the said vehicle were prepared by the respondent in a forged manner for registration and insurance of vehicle, therefore, he is liable to be proceeded against.
The learned Magistrate on the basis of evidence recorded under Section 200 & 202 of 'The Code', vide order dated 05/02/2014, after taking cognizance for offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 458 and 471 of IPC, directed issue of arrest warrant against the respondent. The respondent, feeling aggrieved, preferred a revision before the Court of Sessions Judge, Ratlam. The learned Sessions Judge, vide the impugned order found that there is a civil dispute between the parties with regard to the sale of the vehicle. It was further averred that the petitioner had already preferred a petition before the District M.Cr.C. No.5920/2014 3 Consumer Redressal Forum, Ratlam, bearing No.133/2011, which was rejected vide order dated 23/07/2013 and that the petitioner was not able to establish before the District Consumer Redressal Forum that the car, purchased by him from the respondent was of 2008-2009 make and was involved in an accident. Accordingly, the revision was allowed and the respondent was discharged with regard to the aforesaid offence.
The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the evidence adduced by him before the learned Magistrate, prima-facie, indicated that the respondent has played fraud against him by selling a second hand car in the name of new car, therefore, the learned Sessions Court had seriously erred in arriving at a conclusion that the dispute between the parties was purely of civil nature, hence, the impugned order is liable to be reversed. Arguments have been raised on behalf of the petitioner on the aforesaid lines.
Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the car in question was sold to the petitioner disclosing the chassis number and engine number of the vehicle. All the details with regard to the car were mentioned in the invoice dated 06/08/2014 (copy Annexure-P/3). The vehicle was got registered by the petitioner in the year 2010 itself, vide M.Cr.C. No.5920/2014 4 certificate of registration (copy Annexure-P/5) and that the same was also got insured. Further, it is submitted that a loan of Rs.4,50,000/- was procured by the petitioner from HDFC Bank, Ratlam for purchase of the vehicle, as reflected from the bank communication dated 30/08/2012 (copy Annexure-P/5). Lastly, it is submitted that the tax invoice (copy Annexure-P/6), relied upon by the petitioner to demonstrate that the vehicle was of the year 2008-09, does not support his plea because the same has been issued on 31/01/2011. The contention is that the dispute between the parties is of civil nature, therefore, the learned revisional Court had rightly quashed the order passed by the learned Magistrate.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Annexure-P/3 is a copy of sale invoice dated 06/06/2010 issued by the respondent in favour of the petitioner regarding sale of the car. It transpires from this document that the car, in question, was sold to the petitioner fully describing the chassis number, engine number, serial number and colour of the vehicle. From Ex.P/4, it is further reflected that the petitioner procured a loan of Rs.4,50,000/- from HDFC Bank to purchase the vehicle. Perusal of Ex.P/5, shows that the vehicle, in question, was got registered in the name of petitioner M.Cr.C. No.5920/2014 5 in 2010. As per relevant rules and regulations, the request for registration and insurance is required to be made by the purchaser of the vehicle, therefore, the contention that the respondent had applied for registration and insurance of the vehicle is unacceptable. As regards tax invoice (copy Annexure- P/6), the same is of January, 2011, therefore, it cannot be said on its basis that the vehicle, in question, met with an accident prior to its sale by the respondent to the petitioner.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court to the documents available at page 30,31,32 of the complaint, in support of his plea, that the vehicle was of 2009 make. In view of the established principles of 'caveat emptor' it was for the petitioner to gather necessary information with regard to the make of the vehicle. Considering the fact that relevant information with regard to chassis number and engine number was disclosed at the time of the sale, in sale invoice (copy Annexure P/3), it cannot be said that material facts with regard to the vehicle were concealed by the respondent. The petitioner purchased the vehicle on the basis of loan procured from HDFC Bank. There is nothing on record to indicate that, as a matter of fact, the vehicle in question met with any accident prior to its sale. The totality of facts and circumstances, thus, does M.Cr.C. No.5920/2014 6 not indicate even, prima-facie, that the respondent, prepared forged documents for registration/insurance of the vehicle or had cheated the petitioner by selling old second hand vehicle, representing the same as new one.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the learned revisional Court has committed any error in passing the impugned order.
Resultantly, this petition deserves to be and accordingly, is hereby dismissed.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
sumathi Judge