9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 1365 - HC - Indian LawsDishonour of Cheque - error in not appreciating that the Investigating Officer in his cancellation report has made wrong statements - whether inherent powers provided under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., can be exercised to defeat the statutory bar of Section 397(3) of the Cr.P.C.? - HELD THAT - It is pertinent to note that FIR, bearing No. 613/2007, registered at P.S. New Friends Colony was with respect to commission of offence under Section 406/420 of the IPC. It was observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the impugned order dated 21.04.2011, that the petitioner herein did not dispute his own letter of surrender of vehicle and also that a specific finding by way of evidence collected by the Investigating Officer has come on record that the bus was surrendered to respondent no. 2 and 3 by the petitioner himself. It is further observed that the grounds taken by the petitioner in the present petition are the same that had been taken in the protest petition as well as the revision petition filed by him before the concerned Courts. The learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and subsequently the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the revision petition, have examined the said grounds and thereafter passed detailed orders. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner herein had transferred the insurance of the vehicle himself to some other vehicle and remained silent about the issue for four years and had not paid instalments after November, 2002. One of the ground taken by the petitioner herein, is that he had made a payment of Rs. 1,19,426/-, after the surrender of the bus. It has been rightly observed by the learned ASJ, that even if it is presumed that the abovementioned payment was made, the same will not make out a case under Sections 420/406 of the IPC, in view of the fact that petitioner himself had surrendered the bus. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 25.03.2010, in FIR No. 613/2007, registered at P.S. New Friends Colony and subsequently order dated 21.04.2011, passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, in C.R. No. 24/2010. The learned ASJ, based on the material on record, has rightly dismissed the revision petition filed on behalf the petitioner herein. Petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of orders dated 25.03.2010 and 21.04.2011. 2. Directions for trial of FIR No. 613/2007. 3. Allegation of wrongful conduct by Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. Summary: 1. Quashing of Orders: The petitioner sought to quash the order dated 25.03.2010 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) and the order dated 21.04.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), which upheld the ACMM's decision to accept the cancellation report filed by the Investigating Officer in FIR No. 613/2007 under Sections 406/420 IPC. 2. Directions for Trial of FIR No. 613/2007: The learned Metropolitan Magistrate had directed the registration of FIR No. 613/2007 under Sections 406/420 IPC, which was later investigated, and a cancellation report was filed. The petitioner filed a protest petition against the cancellation report, which was dismissed by the ACMM. The petitioner then filed a revision petition before the ASJ, which was also dismissed. 3. Allegation of Wrongful Conduct by Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd.: The petitioner alleged that Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. misappropriated his bus, which was surrendered for CNG fitting. The petitioner claimed he paid all installments and additional amounts, but the bus was sold without his consent for a meager amount. The Investigating Officer concluded that the petitioner had voluntarily surrendered the bus, supported by evidence such as a letter of surrender and the transfer of the insurance policy. The courts found no criminal offense of misappropriation or cheating, considering the petitioner's actions and the evidence presented. Court's Findings: The court observed that the petitioner had already availed the remedy of revision before the Sessions Court, and a second revision petition was not maintainable under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. The court also noted that the petitioner did not dispute the letter of surrender and had transferred the insurance of the vehicle himself. The grounds raised by the petitioner were the same as those in the protest and revision petitions, which had been examined and dismissed by the lower courts. The court found no illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by the ACMM and the ASJ, and thus, dismissed the present petition. Conclusion: The petition was dismissed, and the orders of the ACMM and ASJ were upheld, finding no reason to interfere with their decisions.
|
