Criminal Appeal filed against an order acquitting respondents in a cheating case under Sections 420 and 34 IPC relating to a hire-purchase agreement dispute. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding the matter to be purely civil in nature.
Criminal Appeal dismissed, confirming the acquittal order of the trial Court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO
Criminal Appeal No.1191 OF 2006
DATED: 08.09.2011
BETWEEN: Abdul Fazaluddin .. Appellant And Nawab Khan and others
.. Respondents
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO
Criminal Appeal No.1191 OF 2006
JUDGMENT:
This criminal appeal is filed against the judgment dated 10.03.2006 passed by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class at Vizianagaram in C.C.No.282 of 2004 acquitting the respondents for the offence under Section 420 read with 34 of IPC.
2. There has been consistently no representation on behalf of the appellant/complainant. Today also when the matter is posted under the caption ‘for judgment’, there is no representation for the appellant. Therefore, this Court decided to dispose of the matter on merits.
3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State.
4. The brief facts leading to filing of the present appeal may be stated as follows:
The first respondent purchased the lorry bearing registration No.AP 31 U 0639 of Tata Benz 1990 model subject to Hire Purchase Agreement in favour of respondent No.2/A2-Sagar Finance Corporation, Hire Purchasers and Financiers. After paying some instalments, the complainant/appellant purchased the said lorry from respondent No.1/A1 admittedly in the presence of respondent No.2/A2. The appellant at the time of purchase, paid an amount of Rs.1,30,000/- and agreed to pay the remaining installments to respondent No.2. Subsequently, the appellant
paid some instalments, and thereafter committed default. The second respondent issued Ex.A.3-legal notice dated 30.10.2001 to the respondent No.1/A1 and vehicle was seized. Subsequently, the appellant/complainant filed the complaint under Section 420 read with 34 IPC against A1 and A2 alleging that both A1 and A2 colluded with each other and made the appellant to believe that A1 was the registered owner of the vehicle and subsequently seized the vehicle illegally.
4. A charge under Section 420 read with 34 IPC was framed by the learned trial Court and to prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 5 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.4.
5. The learned trial Court upon considering the entire evidence on record came to the conclusion that no offence punishable under Section 420 IPC is made out and as it is purely a civil dispute, acquitted A1 and A2 for the charge under Section 420 read with 34 IPC.
6. Now the point for determination in this appeal is: Whether there are any reasonable grounds to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court?
7. Admittedly, the sale of the lorry took place in the presence of the second respondent-Sagar Finance Corporation, Hire Purchasers and Financiers. Even if the entire evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is believed, it cannot be said that at the inception of contract there was an element of deception played by either A1 or A2 under law until the entire installments are paid to the hire purchaser/financier, the ownership of the vehicle vested with the second respondent-hire purchaser. Therefore, the question of respondent No.1/A1 becoming the registered owner of the vehicle does not arise prior to payment of the entire amount. As per the contract entered into between A1 and A2, the
vehicle will be registered in the name of PW.1 only after entire instalments were collected by the respondent No.2. Further, admittedly, PW.1 filed O.S.No.159 of 2001 before the Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram on 12.10.2001 for mandatory injunction to deliver the possession of the vehicle to PW.1 after receiving the amount payable under installments. But, PW.1 did not deposit the said amount before the Court.
8. For what all stated hereinabove, as rightly stated by the learned trial Court, the dispute is purely civil in nature and the offence punishable under Section 420 read with 34 IPC is not at all attracted. There are no sufficient grounds to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court.
9. Consequently, the criminal appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 10.03.2006 passed by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class at Vizianagaram in C.C.No.282 of 2004.
__________________ Date: 08.09.2011 R. KANTHA RAO, J
Kvrm
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO
Criminal Appeal No.1191 OF 2006
DATE: 08.09.2011
2 issues framed by the court
Whether there are any reasonable grounds to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court in a dispute regarding cheating?
Whether the dispute between the parties regarding the hire purchase and sale of a vehicle is purely civil or criminal in nature?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Abdul Fazaluddin
Nawab Khan
R. KANTHA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
