SRIPAL & OTHERS Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL & OTHERS
LAWS(UTN)-2012-3-114
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on March 21,2012

Sripal And Others Appellant
VERSUS
State of Uttaranchal and others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) BY means of this petition, the order of cognizance dated 11.1.2007, passed by Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee in criminal complaint case no. 1427/06, titled as 'Manoj Vs. Sripal & others', has been assailed and a prayer has been made to quash the entire proceedings of the said complaint case. The facts are that respondent no. 3 Manoj Kumar was an unemployed youth. On 7.5.1997, a three -wheeler, bearing No. UP -10B -8587, was purchased by his father Nathi Singh for him to earn livelihood. So, the respondent no. 3 continued to ply the said vehicle till October, 2002. Thereafter his son became indisposed, so he was busy in his medical treatment, which made the said vehicle parked at the house.
(2.) MEANWHILE , the cousin brothers of Manoj Kumar, namely, Sripal, Sriniwas and Pintoo, resident of a nearby village, came to fetch the vehicle, for being plied on payment of Rs. 2,000/ - per month as rent. It is alleged that Manoj Kumar handed over the vehicle to the said persons. They paid the stipulated rent for few months but stopped payment of the same later, which arose the difference. Respondent No. 3 moved an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 11.5.2006. Learned Magistrate registered the application, so moved, as a complaint case, which is impugned in this petition. On 30.5.2006, the complainant examined himself u/s 200 Cr.P.C., whereas on 3.6.2006, his two witnesses, namely, Vinod Kumar (real brother) and Nathi Singh (real father), were examined u/s 202 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, learned Magistrate passed the impugned order of cognizance, asking the petitioners to stand trial for the offences u/s 406/506 IPC. This Court has heard the arguments on either side and gathers the fact, from the entire record, so produced before the Court, that this vehicle exchanged several hands, without mutating their names in the office of Road Transport in the concerned register. Sri Manoj Kumar transferred the vehicle to Yograj, who transferred the same to Sripal; then it was further transferred to Smt. Kavita who transferred it to Mohd. Akram, who in turn, made over the same to Desraj. Thereafter, Desraj transferred it to Gayur, who ultimately, transferred it to Khursheed. It is also pertinent to mention that as per the information revealed by Assistant Road Transport Officer, Haridwar, this three -wheeler, bearing No. UP -10B -8587 was surrendered in its registration only on 6.3.2007 and 25.3.2009 by Sri Manoj Kumar, whose name existed in the original records.
(3.) BESIDES , a perusal of annexure 5, annexed with the petition, shows that this auto vehicle was transferred by Sri Yograj in favour of Sripal (petitioner) for a consideration of Rs. 49,500/ -. It can be discerned that Sri Yograj would have got possession of this vehicle from Sri Manoj Kumar, after giving him due consideration for the same. So, in the helm of above facts and circumstances, the cognizance order is not sustainable and liable to be quashed. Resultantly, the petition is allowed. Proceedings of impugned complaint case no. 1427/2006 as well as the order of cognizance dated 11.1.2007, are hereby quashed.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.