Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt.Shahshi Pandey vs Raju Tripathi Judgement Given By: ... on 26 March, 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR
SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.
M.Cr.C.No.8385/2006
Smt.Shashi Pandey and others
VERSUS
Raju Tripathi and another
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Manish Datt, Senior Advocate alongwith Shri Rahul
Sharma, Advocate for the applicants.
None for the respondent No.1.
Shri S.D.Khan, G.A. for the State/respondent No.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
O R D E R
(Passed on the 26th day of March, 2014) The applicants have preferred the present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved with the order dated 10.12.2002 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal in R.T.No.844/2003, whereby the complaint filed by the respondent No.1 was registered against the applicants for offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B of IPC.
2. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, the respondent No.1 had filed a criminal complaint against the applicants that he had two trucks and those trucks were engaged in Bakaniya Gas filling plant of Indane Gas with Indian Oil Corporation. In Indian Oil Corporation, there was
-:- 2 -:-
M.Cr.C.No.8385 of 2006
a process of tender for transportation of gas cylinders in the entire state of Madhya Pradesh. Those trucks were engaged with Pandey Gas Agency, run by the applicants and therefore, a contract took place between the respondent No.1 and the applicants that the payment of those trucks would be given to the respondent No.1 by the applicants after deducting their commission. The respondent No.1 has mentioned about various clauses of the contract and ultimately, it was pleaded that no action relating to expenditure of oil or otherwise was done by the applicants. The applicants took the money from Indian Oil Corporation but, the same was not provided to the respondent No.1. An intimation was given by the applicants that they did not receive the payment from the plant and they would pay the same on getting the payment. However, they have already received the payment from the plant. Similarly, the applicants usurp a sum of Rs.3,65,192/- and therefore, a criminal complaint was lodged.
3. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal after considering the evidence adduced under Sections 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C. registered the complaint for offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120-B of IPC against the applicants.
-:- 3 -:-
M.Cr.C.No.8385 of 2006
4. In the present case, it was informed by the learned senior Advocate for the applicants that the applicants No.2 and 3 have expired and only the applicant No.1 Shashi Pandey remains. It was also informed that the respondent No.1 has also expired. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 appeared before this Court on 6.3.2014 but, since the respondent No.1 was expired, therefore, he could not claim to represent a dead person and hence, he did not appear before the Court on 20.3.2014. Though vide order dated 3.1.2014, this Court has ordered to take the steps for substitution of legal representatives of the respondents but, no step was taken. Under such circumstances, where a stay was granted by this Court against the proceedings of the trial Court, it appears that no steps were taken by the legal representatives of the respondent No.1 before the trial Court to prosecute the complaint. Matter is pending here for last 7 years and nothing could be done in the matter. Though the learned senior Advocate for the applicants argued the matter on merits but, no order can be passed against a dead person.
5. Under such circumstances, it would be proper that the present matter may be disposed of with the direction that let the trial Court may proceed with the matter if any legal representative of the respondent No.1 appears before the
-:- 4 -:-
M.Cr.C.No.8385 of 2006
trial Court and thereafter, if the remaining applicants are aggrieved with the complaint, they can file a fresh petition.
6. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the present petition filed by the applicants namely Smt.Shashi Pandey, A.K.Pandey and Rajmani Pandey is hereby disposed of with the liberty that the trial Court may proceed further and a liberty may be given to the legal representatives of the respondent No.1 for their substitution before the trial Court and thereafter, if complaint proceeds and remaining applicants are aggrieved with the proceedings then, a fresh petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. may be filed by that applicant against the impugned order dated 10.12.2002.
7. A copy of the order be sent to the trial Court for information that interim stay granted in the case is hereby vacated.
(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE 26/3/2014 Pushpendra