S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION No. 654 of 2011 · Rajasthan High Court
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 18 Mar 2011
- Bench
- R S CHAUHAN
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 120B, 406, 420
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ss. 3(1)(X), 3(1)(x)
Judgment
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr. B.M. Gurjar for the petitioners. Mr. Laxman Meena PP for the State. Aggrieved by the investigation in FIR No.4/2011 registered at Police Station Kardhani, Jaipur City (South) for offences under Sections 406, 420, 120-B IPC and under Section 3(1)(X) of the SC/ST Act, the petitioners have approached this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that for the sale which had taken place in 2007, the FIR has been lodged in 2011. Secondly, the petitioners are not the registered owner of the vehicle in question. Thirdly, they have not played any active role in the sale of vehicle in question to Om Prakash, respondent No.2. Therefore, the FIR amounts to abuse of process of the law. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the FIR. 2 According to the complainant, he was looking for a second-hand pickup truck. Hanuman, petitioner No.3, introduced him to petitioner No.2, Sedu Ram, and informed the complainant that they can help him in choosing the used pick- up truck. Subsequently, the petitioners took him to Nagaur and showed him a pick-up truck, which he bought. According to the complainant, he paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to petitioner No.1, Laxminarayan. Subsequently, Hanuman, petitioner No.3, took back the pick-up truck from the complainant. Hanuman told him that the pick-up truck shall be returned when the entire amount is paid to the owner. A bare perusal of the FIR clearly reveals that an active role has been assigned to the petitioners: part of the money was paid to Laxminarayan, petitioner No.1 and Hanuman, petitioner No.3, took back the pick-up truck. Therefore, the contention that no active role has been assigned to the petitioners is unacceptable. Moreover, sufficient allegations have been made for constituting the offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120B IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act. Therefore, this petition is devoid of any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. A.Asopa/-
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 120B, 406, 420; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — ss. 3(1)(X), 3(1)(x).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Rajasthan High Court, on 18 Mar 2011. The bench was R S CHAUHAN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.