Amar Saran - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel appearing for opposite party No. 2 and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State.
(2.) THIS application has been filed for challenging an order dated 28.2.2005, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 17, Deoria whereby the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the applicants in Case No. 640 of 2005, under Sections 420/467/468/471, I.P.C., police station Kotwali Deoria, district Deoria and for quashing the criminal proceedings in pursuance thereof. Factual Background : The background facts of this case which initially commenced on an application under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) dated 24.7.2001 filed by opposite party No. 2 Vindhyachal Prasad Gupta were that he had jointly purchased a Jeep No. U. P. 52A 5639 with Megh Nath Gupta, applicant No. 1 on 13.1.1995. The said vehicle used to be parked in front of his house. On 2.2.1999 at 8.30 p.m. the applicant No. 1 Megh Nath Gupta, his brother applicant Mukhtyar and son Vinod alias Dabba decamped with the said vehicle from the front of the house of opposite party No. 2. Opposite party No. 2 gave repeated information about this incident to the police authorities after 2.2.1999. However, only on 14.7.2001 he was successful in getting the said vehicle apprehended by the police and it was kept at police station Kotwali, Deoria. As the police still did not lodge his report, he filed the aforesaid application dated 24.7.2001 wherein it was also alleged that he was apprehensive that Megh Nath Gupta would get the papers changed and have the Jeep transferred in his solitary name. On the said application an order was passed on 18.8.2001 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoria for registration of the case. After investigation, a final report was submitted on 20.7.2002 by the police of police station Kotwali, Deoria that on the basis of the record and order of the A.R.T.O., Gorakhpur dated 18.1.2002 no offence under Section 420/468/471, I.P.C. was made out.
(3.) OPPOSITE party No. 2 filed a protest petition against the said final report wherein he reiterated the facts of the case mentioned in the application under Section 156 (3) of the Code. He also pointed out in the protest petition that he had learnt that Megh Nath Gupta had forged his signature and shown a sale of the Jeep in question in favour of Saraswati Devi and on the basis of the forged documents he had even succeeded in getting the vehicle released in her favour. It was further mentioned that even prior to the lodging of the F.I.R. on the basis of the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 18.8.2001, he had moved an application before the A.R.T.O., Deoria that the vehicle should not be transferred without his consent to another party. After the order of the A.R.T.O., Gorakhpur dated 3.2.2000 transferring the vehicle in favour of Smt. Saraswati Devi and rejecting the O.P. No. 2's objections on 18.1.02 he had filed an appeal before the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Varanasi Division to get the handwriting of opposite party No. 2 analysed. The Deputy Transport Commissioner by his order dated 2.7.02 had found that the O.P. 2's signature was forged and had set aside the sale letter in favour of Saraswati Devi and had again entered the names of Vindhyacal Prasad Gupta, opposite party No. 2 and Megh Nath Gupta, applicant No. 1 as owners of the vehicle. However, the police took no action on this fraud in spite of the said order. However, the Chief Judicial Magistrate passed an order on 7.9.2002 accepting the final report submitted by the police, and rejecting the protest petition by the O.P. No. 2 observing that on a perusal of the case diary which referred to the order of the A.R.T.O., Gorakhpur dated 18.1.2002 wherein it was mentioned that the A.R.T.O., Gorakhpur had got some enquiry conducted by subordinate officials about the objections of opposite party No. 2 dated 25.9.2001 and 27.9.2001 and had directed the presence of opposite party No. 2 and Saraswati Devi in his office on 30.1.2001 and 18.1.2002. But they did not appear. The A.R.T.O., Gorakhpur had found that the signatures with photographs of Vindhyacal Gupta and Megh Nath Gupta were present on the sale letter, hence the A.R.T.O., Gorakhpur had considered the sale to be valid and rejected the objections of the opposite party No. 2.;