Madhya Pradesh High Court
Omprakash vs State Of M.P. on 23 February, 2022
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 23rd OF FEBRUARY, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 35668 of 2021
Between:-
OMPRAKASH S/O RAJMANI PANDEY, AGED
ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCCUPATION: VYAPAR R/O
UNITED COMPOUND, E.C.I., PETROL PUMP KE
SAMANE, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI VIJAY KUMAR DUBEY, ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF M.P. STATION HOUSE OFFICER
THROUGH P.S. KSHIPRA, DISTRICT INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI CHETAN JAIN, PANEL LAWYER )
This petition coming on for admission this day, the Court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner for quashment of FIR No.208 of 2021 registered against him at Police Station Kshipra, District- Indore for offence punishable under Section 406 and 407 of the IPC.
02. The allegation against the petitioner is that he is the owner of Ram-Rahim Transport company. On 12.06.2021, a complaint was made by the complainant Manedra Dwivedi to the effect that he had booked certain goods with the transport company of the petitioner. The goods were loaded in the truck bearing registration No.MP-09-HF-2285 for being transported to Hyderabad. The goods were of the value of Rs.32,56,902/-. The truck though left from the office of transport company but the same did not reach its destination. On being contacted, petitioner gave evasive answers and did not furnish any concrete information as regards the where about of the truck. On making of the complaint search for the truck was made and the same was recovered from the driver of the same. In investigation, it was found that the truck had been deliberately stopped by the petitioner who had 2 instructed the driver not to take the same to its destination. On recovery of the truck, petitioner has been implicated in the present offence.
03. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case. He has been in commercial transactions with the complainant since a very long time and has been transported his goods on numerous occasions. For the past transactions, the petitioner is entitled for recovery of a considerable amount of money which was not paid to him by the complainant. He also issued a legal notice dated 14.06.2021 to the complainant in that regard who however did not pay the amount to him hence he is justified in withholding the goods of the complainant. Complaint as regards non-payment of amount by the complainant to him has also been made by him to various Police authorities on 12.06.2011 upon which no action has been taken. It is further submitted that custody of the petitioner is not required as in the fact of the case it would appropriate for the Police to issue notice to him under Section 41€ÂÂ"A of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner shall make himself available as and when required. It is hence submitted that FIR against the petitioner be quashed.
04. Prayer has been opposed by learned counsel for the respondent/State submitting that there is sufficient material to proceed against the petitioner and that no ground has been made out for quashment of the FIR.
05. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case diary. The allegation against the petitioner is of him having misappropriated the goods of the complainant which were entrusted with him for being transported to Hyderabad.
06. A perusal of the FIR, the statement of witnesses recorded, the fact of recovery of the truck and the other material prima facie show that there is sufficient ground for proceedings against the petitioner. At this stage it cannot be said that there is no material whatsoever on the basis of which the petitioner cannot be prosecuted. The registration of FIR and the proceedings against the petitioner cannot in any manner be said to be an abuse of process of law. The contentions as have been raised by the petitioner in this petition are his defence and are all matters of evidence to be considered by the Court below at the appropriate stage. Only on the basis of same, at this stage, proceedings against the petitioner cannot be 3 quashed.
07. As far as the contention regarding issuance of notice by the Police to the petitioner and him ensuring his presence as and was required is concerned, the same cannot be a subject matter of this petition since the same is for quashment of the FIR. The only consideration in this petition is as to whether on the allegations levelled against the petitioner, the case should be proceeded against him or not. This contention of the petitioner is hence declined to be entertained.
08. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed.
(PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE jyoti Digitally signed by JYOTI CHOURASIA Date: 2022.03.02 15:14:07 +05'30'