- (1.) BY Court: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State. No one appears for the complainant opposite party No.2, in spite of the fact that the notice was validly served upon him and he has appeared through Advocate. On the earlier date also, no one had appeared for the opposite party no.2, in spite of repeated calls and accordingly, the case was adjourned in order to give him a chance. But today also, no one appears for the complainant opposite party No.2 in spite of repeated calls.
(2.) THE petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 5.6.2009 passed by Sri Anuj Kumar, learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, in Complaint Case No.282 of 2005, whereby, the application filed by the petitioners for discharge under Section 245 of the Cr.P.C., has been rejected by the Court below. The record shows that a complaint petition was filed by the complainant Ganesh Mahli, alleging therein that he had purchased a trekker bearing registration No. JH -01B -5564 from Ashok Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., under the Higher Purchase Agreement which was financed by the petitioners company (Shivam Finance and Leasing Company). It is stated that some installments were paid by the complainant, but as the rest of installments could not be paid, the accused persons who were sent by the company, forcibly snatched away the vehicle from the driver and khalasi of the trekker in the month of March 2004.
(3.) THE petitioners being the employees of the said Finance Company, have been made accused in this case. It appears that the statement of the complainant was recorded on solemn affirmation, wherein, the complainant supported the case and some witnesses were also examined at the enquiry stage, on the basis of which, the prima facie case was found against the petitioners and processes were issued against them. Subsequently, the petitioners filed their application for discharge, which has been rejected by the impugned order passed by the Court below.;