The present Application has been filed by the Applicant - Original Complainant for the prayers and the directions inter alia that the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chotila in Inquiry Case No. 3 of 2009 dated 9.2.2011 and the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Limbadi in Criminal Revision Application No.7 of 2011 dated 23.2.2012 may be quashed and set aside on the grounds stated in the Application.
Learned Advocate Mr. Kirtidev R.Dave for the Applicant has stated that, as stated in the complaint, the Applicant has been defrauded, as the amount has been taken but the Tractor has not been handed over, and the amount which was paid is also not returned, for which the complaint has been filed, and therefore the present Application may be allowed with appropriate directions.
Learned Advocate Mr. Dave for the Applicant has alternatively submitted that atleast the amount may be ordered to be returned.
Though the submissions have been made, a bare perusal of the papers, including the impugned orders would make it clear that the complaint was filed, on the basis of which inquiry was made, and thereafter the order was passed under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Against the said order, Revision was preferred and the Sessions Court has also in its order has discussed in detail with regard to the transaction specifically considering the fact that the son of the complainant had taken Bolero Car for which the Tractor was given and the amount has been credited and adjusted towards the purchase of the Bolero Car. It is specifically observed that therefore the dispute is of civil nature with regard to adjustment of the amount or the account and therefore the revision has been rejected, which cannot be said to be erroneous. The order passed by the Sessions Court in Revision with reasons does not call for any interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.PC or the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
It is well accepted that such discretion is required to be exercised with care and circumspection and not in such cases where the dispute is of civil nature, which require a detailed evidence with regard to the adjustment of the amount or the loan amount, and therefore, the prayer regrading direction cannot be granted nor the impugned order can be quashed and set aside.
The present Special Criminal Application therefore deserves to be dismissed and accordingly stands dismissed in limine.
(Rajesh H. Shukla,J) Jayanti* Top