- (1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, complainant and learned counsel appearing for the State.
(2.) THIS application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case bearing C/1 Case No.120 of 2012 including the order order dated 09.02.2012 whereby and whereunder the then Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur, took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it is the case of the complainant that a Truck bearing Registration No. NL-01G-16362 belonging to the complainant while was carrying certain articles for making delivery of it to consignee, it got halted in the way as the engine stopped functioning. Thereupon, another engine was hired and was fitted in the Truck. The Truck proceeded to its destination but it was intercepted by some of the accused, who were the employees of Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. to which the petitioner is the Chief Executive Officer and took it away at the instance of the petitioner. On such allegation, the complaint was lodged under Sections 323/392/387/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, but the court after holding inquiry took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.
(3.) MR. P.P.N. Roy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner's company had advanced money to one Ranjeet Singh for purchasing Tractor, who, in fact, did purchase the Tractor but the engine of it, when was found to have been used in the complainant's Truck, the truck was repossessed by the company in terms of the agreement entered into in between the company and Ranjeet Singh and as such, it may not be a case of robbery. However, certainly some dispute would be there but that dispute in the facts and circumstances of the case would always be personal in nature. Since the dispute got settled, a compromise petition filed in the case be accepted and the case be quashed, in view of the decision rendered in a case of Shiji @ Pappu and Ors. Vs. Radhika and Anr. [(2011) 4 JLJR 421].;