B.L. Hansaria, J. - (1.) A complaint was filed against the three Petitioners under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. After going through the materials on record, the learned trial Court, however, framed charge only under Section 420 against Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and discharged Petitioner No. 3. None the less all the three accused persons have approached this Court for quashing the proceeding. It may be stated that against the order of discharge of Petitioner No. 3, a revision, has been preferred before the learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh, as stated by Shri Sen, which is said to be pending.
(2.) AS the approach to this Court is under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, it may be stated at the outset that the inherent power has to be invoked where the Courts is satisfied that the proceeding is an abuse of the process of the Court or where it thinks that interest of justice demands that the proceedings be quashed. This power is invoked when, on the facts alleged, the Court is satisfied that no case is made out. Let it, therefore, be seen if a prima facie case under Section 420 has been made out or not against Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. The brand fact which has given rise to this prosecution is that according to the complainant the three Petitioner approached him for adverting a sum of Rs. 30,000/ - as loan. This was on 15.1.81. Through he was hesitant and was (sic) he was prevailed upon (sic) by saying that Truck (sic) AST 3081 which really belongs to the three Petitioners but is registered in the name of Petitioner 3, would be given as a security. The complainant then advanced the sum of Rs. 30,000/ -. An approach was again made on 18.3.81, and this time to advance a sum of Rs. 40.000/ -. The initial hesitation of the complainant was over -come, this time by saying that the truck would stand sold to him against the total consideration of Rs. 70,000/ -. Petitioner No. 2 gave a receipt for the amount and also drafted a letter to effect transfer of the truck in the name of the complainant. The transfer was, however, refused by the District Transport Officer, Dibrugarh, as the truck was registered in the name of Petitioner No. 3 alone. The further allegation is that on 25.3.81, the accused persons took away the truck from the control of the complainant. On the matter being taken up with the accused -persons. they said that they would either deliver the truck or refund a sum of Rs. 70,000/ -, which was not done. In support of its case, the complainant examined some witnesses and on going through the same and after hearing the parties, the learned trial Court framed charges as stated above and discharged Petitioner No. 3. Shri Sen submits that the case is of purely civil nature end. if the accused persons had failed to refund the money, the complainant is well within his rights to approach the Civil Court either for return of the money or for enforcing the contract to sell the truck. A strong reliance is sought to be placed by Shri Sen on Hari Prasad Chamaria v. Bishun Kumar Surekha : (1973) 2 SCC 823. On the fact of that case, the Court came to the Conclusion that there was mere breach of contract which could not give rise to a criminal prosecution. The observations in paragraph 4 are pertinent which state that nothing was found in the complaint to disclose that the Respondents of that case had dishonest or fraudulent intention at the time the Appellant had parted with the sum of Rs. 35,000/ -. There was, also nothing to indicate in that case that the Respondents induced the Appellant to pay them Rs. 35,000/ - by deceiving him nor was that a case where representation had been made by the Respondents to the Appellant at or before the time be had paid the money to them, which representation the Respondents knew to be these. In so far as the case at hand is concerned, it is the clear case of the complainant that he had parted with the money. and which is as high as Rs. 70.000/ - on the representation of the accused person that the truck would remain an security with the complainant so far as the first transaction is concerned and after the second was gone into even sale was promised and really a document has been ascribed by Petitioner No. 2. When it is remembered that the second alleged loan was on 18.3.81 and the vehicle had been taken away on 25.3.81, deception caused in the mind of the complainant would become apparent so would be the evil intention of the accused persons. I am, therefore, prima facie satisfied that the accused persons had in fact, induced the complainant to part with the money on the false representation that the truck would either remain as security for the money or would be sold to him, The prosecution cannot, therefore, be regarded as a weapon of harassment or any abuse of the process of the Court. The decision in the State of Karnataka v. Muniswamy : (1977) 2 SCC 699, does not, therefore, assist the Petitioners,
(3.) IN the result, the prayer for quashing the proceeding is rejected and the petition is dismissed.;