Crl.Misc.No.M- 16233 of 2011 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M- 16233 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.7.2011 Sandeep Kumar ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.S.S.Majithia, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. Complainant-petitioner had filed a complaint under Sections 420/ 465/ 467/ 468/ 471/ 120-B of the Indian Penal Code IPC for short) against respondents No.2 and 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, was that he was running the business of repair of refrigerators. The petitioner was also running a business along with Gurcharan Singh Dhillon, Vijay Kumar- respondent No.3 and Kartar Singh as property dealers. Vijay Kumar-respondent No.3 developed relations with the petitioner and started visiting his house. In April 1999, the petitioner and Gurcharan Singh Dhillon went to the house of respondent No.3. Wife of respondent No.3 i.e. respondent No.2 Chander Prabha was also Crl.Misc.No.M- 16233 of 2011 (O&M) 2 present there. Respondent No.3 showed his intention to purchase a new car and requested the petitioner to help him in this regard. The petitioner paid ` 68,000/- in two instalments to Gurcharan Singh Dhillon. Thereafter, Gurcharan Singh Dhillon got the car financed from City Bank and respondent No.2 purchased a Maruti Zen car in her name after getting the loan from City Bank on 29.6.1999. The car was purchased from Lovely Automobiles, Jalandhar. The car was got insured with National Insurance Company on 14.6.1999. The insurance amount was paid by respondent No.3 by way of a cheque but the said cheque was later dishonoured. The car after its purchase was being used for unlawful purposes and case under the Excise Act was registered, wherein the liquor was found being carried in the car purchased by respondent No.2. The car bearing temporary number PB-08-K-7347 was got released on superdari by respondent No.2 vide order dated 9.9.1999 (Annexure P-2). Respondent No.3 requested the petitioner that he was not interested in keeping the car and thereafter, the vehicle was handed over to the petitioner on rent as the petitioner wanted to use the car as a taxi. On 19.11.1999, permanent No.PB-02-V-9677 was allotted to the car. On 26.12.1999, respondent No.2 got a false affidavit prepared that she had lost the original bill and relevant documents of the car, although the original papers were already in the office of District Transport Officer, Amritsar on 25.12.1999. Thereafter, respondent No.2 lodged a false DDR No. 17 on 26.12.1999 (Annexure P-4) with a view to cheat the petitioner. Thereafter, respondent No.2 procured a duplicate bill from Lovely Automobiles, Jalandhar. Respondent No.2 then got the car again insured for one year w.e.f. 14.6.1999. The car was later Crl.Misc.No.M- 16233 of 2011 (O&M) 3 transferred in favour of Bhupinder Singh in contravention of the superdari bond. In the criminal case registered under the Excise Act, respondent No.2 was issued a notice under Section 446 Cr.P.C. on an application moved by the petitioner. Respondent No.2 had deposited the fine as ordered by the Court. Vide order dated 28.3.2009 (Annexure P-10), the Judicial Magistrate dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner on the ground that he had failed to make out a prima facie case against respondents No.2 and 3. The petitioner had orally deposed that he had taken the car on hire basis from respondents No.2 and 3. The petitioner had failed to substantiate his plea that the original documents were already lying in the office of District Transport Officer. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision petition but the same was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 3.7.2010 (Annexure P-11). It is a settled proposition of law that the petitioner cannot invoke jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. After dismissal of his revision by the Sessions Court as it would amount to a second revision. However, in a case of grave injustice, this Court can interfere under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In the present case, the petitioner has, however, failed to make out a prima facie case against respondents No.2 and 3, which would call for interference by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioner had failed to substantiate his plea that the original documents were already lying in the office of the District Transport Officer by leading any evidence.In these circumstances, learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly held that the complaint appeared to Crl.Misc.No.M- 16233 of 2011 (O&M) 4 have been filed by the petitioner to settle his own personal grievances. Hence, no ground for interference by this Court is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE July 22, 2011 anita