- (1.) The hearing arises from an application u/s 482 Cr. P. C. filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the proceeding being Complaint Case No. 558C/04 u/s 406 I. P. C. pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Howrah and all orders passed therein including order dated 06.05.04.
(2.) The circumstances leading to the above application are that one Lalji Roy entered into an agreement for sale of Mini Bus being No. WMH-1311 on 24.12.96, with the petitioner and Opposite Party No. 2 at a consideration of Rs. 1,45,000/-, out of which the petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 70,000/- to said Lalji Roy and some amount to the financer, and on that date the said vehicle was purchased. The petitioner and Opposite Party No. 2 entered into a partnership for plying the said Mini Bus. As per terms of Clause 11 of the said Deed, Lalji Roy executed a Power-of-Attorney in favour of Opposite Party No. 2, and in terms of the said Power-of-Attorney Opposite Party No. 2 was to ply the vehicle for first five years and then the petitioner for the next five years. On 18.12.2000 the petitioner received an Advocate's letter from Opposite Party No. 2 calling upon him to return the vehicle to Opposite Party No. 2 within seven days. After a lapse of about 4-1/2 years Opposite Party No. 2 filed the said complaint u/ss 406/420 I. P. C. against the petitioner before the Court of Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah and the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, took cognizance of the offence on 06.05.04 followed by issuing process by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Howrah against the petitioner u/s 406 I. P. C. Opposite Party No. 2 filed an application u/s 93 Cr. P. C. praying for issuing search warrant for recovery of the vehicle which was allowed by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Howrah on 29.05.04 directing Officer-in-Charge, Domjur P. S. to seize the vehicle. On 18.06.04 the petitioner on surrender before the learned Court below was enlarged on bail. The petitioner filed an application for return of the vehicle which was rejected by the learned Judicial Magistrate on 30.06.04. The petitioner preferred a revisional application before the learned Sessions Judge, Howrah for setting aside the orders dated 06.05.04, 29.05.04 and 30.06.04 and for return of the seized vehicle which was dismissed. Taking cognizance of the offence by the learned Magistrate without considering the statutory bar as embodied in Section 468 Cr. P. C. was illegal.
(3.) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the initiation and continuation of the proceeding, the petitioner has come up before this Court.;