Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.01.09 15:37:25 +0530 2025:CGHC:1050-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2635 of 2024 Civil Prajapati S/o Late Seetaram Aged About 55 Years Caste- Kumhar, R/o Nagar Ramanujganj, Ward No. 01, Police Station- Ramanujganj, District - Balrampur-Ramanaujganj, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus
Legal Reasoning
1 - Niranjan Pandey S/o Shri Ganesh Pandey Aged About 35 Years Occupation- Ex Branch Manager (Shivam Motors Private Limited), Show Room Of Tata Motors), Presently Resided At- H. No. 189, Bazarpara, Charcha Colony, Korea, Police Station Charcha, District Korea, C.G. 2 - Amarnath Gupta S/o Shri Heeralal Gupta Aged About 51 Years R/o Nagar Ramanujganj, Ward No. 02, Police Station- Ramanujganj, District - Balrampur-Ramanaujganj, C.G. 3 - Smt. Seema Devi W/o Shri Amarnath Gupta Aged About 46 Years R/o Nagar Ramanujganj, Ward No. 02, Police Station- Ramanujganj, District - Balrampur-Ramanaujganj, C.G. 2 4 - Bitu Gupta D/o Shri Amarnath Gupta Aged About 18 Years R/o Nagar Ramanujganj, Ward No. 02, Police Station- Ramanujganj, District - Balrampur-Ramanaujganj, C.G. 5 - Shankar Prasad Gupta S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Gupta Aged About 36 Years R/o Nagar Ramanujganj, Ward No. 02, Police Station- Ramanujganj, District - Balrampur-Ramanaujganj, C.G. 6 - Shravan Prajapati S/o Shri Seetaram Prajapati Aged About 50 Years Caste- Kumhar, Occupation - Grocery Shop, R/o Wadrafnagar Rajkheta, Police Station- Basantpur, District - Balrampur-Ramanaujganj, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dashrath Kushwaha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Judgment on Board 08.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Dashrath Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant. 2. The complainant has sought leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 28.06.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balrampur, Place- Ramanujganj, District- Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.). in Criminal Complaint Case 3 No. 291/2017 by which, the respondents / accused has been acquitted of the charges punishable under Sections 392, 420, 467, 471/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the appellant had filed a complaint alleging therein that in the year 2013, had financed Tata Pick- up (Chassis No. MAT524001DRG05321) from Shivam Motors Private Limited, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur Ramanujganj (C.G.) to the tune of Rs. 5,51,000/- in the name of his wife namely Juhi Prajapati. For the purpose, he paid Rs. 1,20,000/- as down payment in terms of the finance. The first installment of Rs. 18,346/- was paid by the Appellant. The appellant was sent behind the bar in Sessions Trial No. 99/1995. Thereafter the accused persons visited the house of appellant and forcefully taken the key and Tata Pick-up. At the time of incident, the appellant was languishing in jail due to which no any legal action was taken at that time. During May 2015, when the appellant released from the jail, he tried his level best to get back the Tata Pick-up from the possession of the accused but failed. The appellant sent legal notice to the accused persons but they did not turn-up. Aggrieved by which the appellant had filed complaint before the Court below. Further, the learned trial Court vide the impugned order dated 28.06.2024 had discharged the accused persons from the aforesaid offences. 4. The learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence available on record, acquitted the respondents / accused from the offences for which they have been charged with by giving him the benefit of doubt. 4 5. Mr. Dashrath Kushwaha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant submits that the impugned order dated 28.06.2024, is bad in law, as well facts available on record. The learned trial court, had committed illegality in not providing proper opportunity of hearing to the appellant, before passing such illegal order. Further, the learned trial court, while adjudicating the present case had totally ignored the provision prescribed under negotiable instrument act, as well as criminal procedure code and has exceeded his jurisdiction while adjudicating the case and dismissed it only on account of non appearance which was mainly due to lack of knowledge. Further, looking to entire facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 6. Learned Special Judge has acquitted the respondent / accused finding that in this case, the date of the incident is not clear further nor the complainant neither his wife clarified the same. The complainant's has admitted in cross-examination that he left home for work at 9:00 am on the date of the incident. In such a situation, it is not clear whether the said witness was present at the scene of the incident or not. The said witness has also clarified that the complainant and his wife had not lodged any report regarding the robbery of the vehicle. Whereas according to the complainant, the incident is said to have taken place in September 2013 after August 2013. But no report was lodged immediately by the complainants. An application has been given to the Ramanujganj police station on 16.12.2016 after almost three years. Whereas before this, a notice / settlement notice was given by Tata 5 Motors Finance Company for payment of the outstanding loan amount. Due to which, it is clear that instead of registering an immediate report of the incident in the Ramanujganj police station, after the notice for payment of the finance amount, an application was given in the Ramanujganj police station to refrain from making the outstanding payment of the said finance amount. When the police station Ramanujganj did not take any action and after giving application to the Superintendent of Police Balrampur, in the investigation proceedings, no crime was found to have been committed against the accused, it becomes clear from the statement of the complainant that the outstanding amount of the loan has been settled. Further, under the overall investigation of the case, the complainant has failed to produce material evidence to establish beyond doubt the contents of the crime alleged against the accused. The complainants have been refuting the defence suggestion, due to which the allegations made by the complainants regarding the role of the accused in the crime do not appear to be credible, but point towards other events, which as per the conclusion lacks material confirmation on the facts of the crime alleged against the accused. Thus, the complainants have failed to establish the triable question against the accused beyond doubt. Therefore, it is a well-established principle of law that if the triable facts against the accused are not being established beyond doubt, the benefit of this should be given to the accused. Therefore, giving the benefit of doubt to the accused, the accused were acquitted of the charge of the crime under Section 392, 420, 467, 468, 471/34 of the IPC. 6 7. Taking into consideration the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner / complainant and other evidence available on record, it cannot held that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court acquitting the respondents / accused from aforesaid offences are perverse or contrary to record. We do not find any reason to grant leave to appeal. Accordingly, the application is rejected and consequently, acquittal appeal is also dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet