IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr.Misc. No.18175 of 1999
MAHABIR PRASAD SHARMA, SON OF LATE MOHAN LAL
SHARMA, THE REGIONAL MANAGER M/S ASHOK LEYLAND
FINANCE LTD, LAW KUSH TOWER, EXHIBITION ROAD,
PATNA...................................................... PETITIONER
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. PRABHAT BHUSAN, SON OF LATE SHAMBHU NATH SAHAY,
ABULAS LANE, MACHHUA TOLI, P.S. KADAM KUAN,
DISTRICT- PATNA................................... OPPOSITE PARTIES
With
Cr.Misc. No.18225 of 1999
M/S ASHOK LEYLAND FINANCE LTD, HAVING ITS
REGISTERED OFFICE AT SUDARSHAN BUILDING, 86,
CHAMIERS ROAD, CHENNAI-18 THROUGH MR. MAHAVIR
PRASAD SHARMA, S/O LATE MOHAN LAL SHARMA,
REGIONAL MANAGER, ASHOK LEY LAND FINANCE LTD.
DULY AUTHORISED TO REPRESENT M/S ASHOK LEYLAND
FINANCE LTD.
2. P. RAGHUNATHAN, GENERAL MANAGER ACCOUNTS AND
SECRETARY, M/S ASHOK LEYLAND FINANCE LIMITED,
SUDARSHAN BUILDING, 86, CHAMIERS ROAD, CHENNAI-18
3. RATAN KUMAR SINHA, SON OF SRI T.P. SINHA, A.G.M.
(EAST), M/S ASHOK LEYLAND FINANCE LTD. 41,
SHAKESPEARE SARANI, CALCUTTA-17........ PETITIONERS
Versus
1. STATE OF BIHAR
2. PRABHAT BHUSAN, SON OF LATE SHAMBHU NATH
SAHAY, ABULAS LANE, MACHHUA TOLI, P.S. KADAM KUAN,
DISTRICT- PATNA......................................OPP. PARTIES.
-----------
FOR THE PETITIONERS :- MR. ASHWANI KR. SINGH,
SR. ADVOCATE
MR. PANKAJ KR. DAS ADVOCATE
MR. PANKAJ KR. SINGH, ADVOCATE
FOR THE STATE :- MR. MATLOOB RAM, A.P.P.
———-
16 27-4-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners in both the
quashing applications and learned counsel for the State. In
spite of notice nobody has appeared for the complainant.
2
Both the quashing applications arise out of a
complaint case bearing no. 509 ( C ) / 1999 pending before a
Judicial Magistrate, Ist. Class, Patna and the challenge is to
the order of cognizance taken on 14-6-1999 as well as the
entire criminal proceeding on the ground of being malicious
and filed only with a view to pressurize the Financial
Company and its officials not to pursue Misc. Case No. 1715
of 2009 filed under section 9 of the Arbitration Act before the
City Civil Court, Calcutta in which an order appointing
receiver to take possession of the Fiat car,the subject matter
of hire purchase was passed by the Civil Court on 5-3-1999
Annexure-F ).
From the averments in the complaint case it has
been shown that only material allegation, with a view to make
out a case under sections 406 and 420 of the I.P.C. is to the
effect that in course of hire purchase agreement, signature of
the complainant was obtained on a document in which the
name of the arbitrator was left blank and allegedly the name
was subsequently inserted in breach of trust and for the
purpose of cheating the complainant.
It appears that the arbitrator named in the document
3
has also been made accused no.6 and cognizance order under
challenge dated 14-6-99 has been quashed by this Court in
respect of that accused by order dated 10th February, 2000
passed in Cr.Misc. Case No. 18145/99. The undisputed order
passed by the City Civil Court, Calcutta on 5th March,1999
supports the defence of the petitioners noted above and there
appears substance in the submission that when the receiver
attempted to take possession of the vehicle under hire
purchase, the complaint case in question was filed on 22nd
April1999.
There also appears substance in the submission that
it is easy to allege that a document signed by the complainant
contained a blank and it has been filled up with the name of
the arbitrator a co-accused with a view to commit some
offence but it is very difficult to prove that the complainant
signed the document with closed eyes without noticing the
blank. There appears substance in the submission that merely
the name of the Advocate/ Arbitrator allegedly filled up
against blank cannot be sufficient indication that there was
any breach of trust or cheating against the complainant.
The fact that the complainant had appeared earlier
4
in this case at the stage of admission but later no vakalatnama
was filed and his non-appearance even after service of notice
being effected in February, 2011, shows that he has also lost
interest in the complaint case which appears to have been
filed only to put mala fide pressure upon accused no.1, a
financer, not to take possession of the vehicle through
lawfully appointed receiver.
For all the aforesaid reasons the complaint case in
question as well as the order of cognizance are quashed and
both the quashing applications are allowed.
Naresh ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)