PATNA, India, July 30 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on July 14:
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant/O.P. No.2.
2. The present application has been filed for quashing the cognizance order dated 12.04.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Patna in connection with Kankarbagh P.S. Case No.916 of 2020, whereby the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') against the petitioner.
3. The case of prosecution, in brief, according to the informant is that he purchased a Maruti Swift ZXI from the accused/petitioner in November, 2019 after paying Rs.5 lacs for which the accused/petitioner issued a Sale Letter in favour of the informant on 25.12.2019, which was certified by the Notary on 20.01.2020. It is further alleged that the accused/petitioner had purchased the said vehicle through Mahindra Finance and assured the informant that he would give a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from Mahindra Finance Company after giving all the due installments within a month for transfer of ownership. It is further alleged that instead of assurance given to the informant, the accused/petitioner did not pay the amount of installment and on 15.03.2020, the said vehicle was seized by Mahindra Finance Company from the possession of the informant. Thereafter, the informant conveyed the information to the accused/petitioner, whereafter he assured that he would return Rs. 5 lacs within one or two months but, till today, the petitioner/accused has not returned the said money, consequent upon, present case was lodged.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for petitioner that both parties are known to each other being business partners and out of said acquaintance, the car of petitioner bearing Registration No. BR01DV6065 was purchased by O.P. No.2 against sum of Rs. 5 lakhs. It is submitted that from the facial perusal of FIR, it is clear that petitioner never deceived O.P. No.2 as FIR itself speaks to pay balance loan amount to the Mahindra Finance Company within one month. It was never said by petitioner to O.P. No.2 that the car is loan free, whereas the cognizance was taken under wrong impression that petitioner said to O.P. No.2 that the entire installment has already paid and, therefore, took cognizance for the offence under Section 420 of the IPC wrongly. It is submitted that when the vehicle was lifted by M/s. Mahindra Finance Company from the possession of O.P. No.2, the O.P. No.2 raised a demand to return Rs.5 lakhs as received against purchase of aforesaid amount but, same was not returned and, thereafter, the present case was lodged. It is submitted that non-returning of the amount is not amounting to cheating for the simple reason that it is amounting to revocation of the contract. It is submitted that if petitioner would have intention to cheat the O.P. No.2 from very inception of the said purchase, he never handed over the vehicle in issue to O.P. No.2. In support of his submission, learned counsel has relied upon the legal reports of Hon'ble Supreme Court as available through Rikhab Birani and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [2025 SCC Online SC 823], CBI v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd., [(1996) 5 SCC 591] and Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. State of U.P., [(2024) 10 SCC 690].
The rest of the document can be viewed at https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NiM2MzgxNiMyMDI0IzEjTg==-4QIiW0EK1Zk=
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
