Ashfaq HussaIn Vs. Sushil

Ashfaq Hussain vs Sushil

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Feb 25, 2013

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1047356

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1047356
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Feb 25, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ashfaq Hussain

Advocate Shri. Wakil Khan

Respondent

Sushil

Excerpt

.....of ipc. learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has not entered into agreement with the complainant and therefore in the absence of any privity of contract between them no offence is made out against them. 2 on perusal of the complaint it is clear that the petitioner has also denied the transfer of the truck on 12.8.2003. learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that on earlier occasion the complainant had also filed a complaint which was dismissed vide order dated 6.6.2006, therefore, second complaint on same facts is not maintainable. but the fact regarding dismissal of the earlier complaint has been clearly mentioned in paragraph 7 of the impugned complaint and copy of earlier complaint has been filed as annexure p-2 with the petition. the earlier complaint was dismissed on the ground that civil suit was pending between the parties and till then there shall be no justification to proceed with the complaint. it is further mentioned that after passing the judgment in civil suit the complainant has filed the impugned complaint. under the aforesaid circumstances the petition is not maintainable. however, the petitioner may raise these grounds in the petition before the trial court for quashing the complaint under section 245 of cr.p.c. and the trial court may consider the fact that nature of litigation is of civil and not a ground to proceed with the criminal case. considering the averments that petitioner was involved in refusal of transfer of truck, it can not be said that the trial court has not justified in taking the cognizance of the offence. the petition is dismissed.c.c. as per rules. (anil kumar sharma) judge k

Full Judgment

1 M.

Cr.C.NO.3594/2009 25.2.2013.

Shri Wakil Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Heard.

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

for quashing the proceeding of Criminal Case No.2381/2008 pending in the Court of JMFC Sagar, arising out of the complaint filed by the respondent/ complainant and JMFC Sagar has taken the cognizance under Section 406 and 420 of IPC against the petitioner and Sarafat Hussain.

It has been alleged by the complainant that Sarafat Hussain had entered into an agreement by which the truck owned by the petitioner Ashfaq Hussain was transferred to the complainant and the consideration of Rs.91,000/- has been made by the complainant on 10.11.2000.

It is further alleged that when the complainant insisted for transfer of that truck in the RTO office then Safafat Hussain avoided and on 12.8.2003 when the complainant went to the house of Sarafat Khan with the witness of agreement and demanded back his property or to transfer the truck in his name on which both Sarafat and Ashfaq told him that they have sold the truck to another.

Therefore, the complainant has filed the complaint and learned JMFC has taken the cognizance and directed to register the offence against the petitioner and Ashfaq under Section 406 and 420 of IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has not entered into agreement with the complainant and therefore in the absence of any privity of contract between them no offence is made out against them.

2 On perusal of the complaint it is clear that the petitioner has also denied the transfer of the truck on 12.8.2003.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that on earlier occasion the complainant had also filed a complaint which was dismissed vide order dated 6.6.2006, therefore, second complaint on same facts is not maintainable.

But the fact regarding dismissal of the earlier complaint has been clearly mentioned in paragraph 7 of the impugned complaint and copy of earlier complaint has been filed as Annexure P-2 with the petition.

The earlier complaint was dismissed on the ground that civil suit was pending between the parties and till then there shall be no justification to proceed with the complaint.

It is further mentioned that after passing the judgment in civil suit the complainant has filed the impugned complaint.

Under the aforesaid circumstances the petition is not maintainable.

However, the petitioner may raise these grounds in the petition before the trial Court for quashing the complaint under Section 245 of Cr.P.C.

and the trial Court may consider the fact that nature of litigation is of civil and not a ground to proceed with the criminal case.

Considering the averments that petitioner was involved in refusal of transfer of truck, it can not be said that the trial Court has not justified in taking the cognizance of the offence.

The petition is dismissed.C.C.

as per rules.

(Anil Kumar Sharma) Judge k

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2013 Same Parties Ashfaq Hussain vs Sushil Same Subject Education