THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5406 of 2006 Dated: 20th January, 2010 Between: P.C.Patnaik …Petitioner / Accused No.2 AND Gunnam Gopalarao And another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5406 of 2006 ORDER: This petition is filed by the second accused under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for quashing proceedings in C.C.No.393 of 1998 on the file of III Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Rajahmundry, relating to offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420/34 I.P.C. The petitioner / A-2 is a retired Income Tax Officer residing at Bhuvaneshwar in Orissa state. A-1 borrowed Rs.80,000/- from the de- facto complainant who was running ‘Dhanodaya Finance Corporation’ at Rajahmundry and entered into Hire Purchase Agreement in respect of Ambassador Car bearing No. ADH 1359. Hire Purchase Agreement in favour of the de-facto complainant was also entered in registration certificate of the car. While so, it is alleged that A-1 paid two instalments totalling Rs.9,474/- under the Hire Purchase Agreement and committed default in payment of balance amount of Rs.1,05,626/-. The prosecution alleges that A-1 colluded with A-2 and secreted the car with A-2 and caused disappearance of the vehicle and did not pay any amount due to the de-facto complainant. Even from the allegations contained in the charge-sheet, it is evident that there is no privity of contract between A-2 and the finance corporation. Hire Purchase contract was only between A-1 and the finance corporation. The only allegation against A-2 is that he colluded with A-1 and secreted the vehicle. Except mere allegation to that effect, there is no prima facie proof with the prosecution on that aspect. It is not as if subject car was recovered from possession of A- 2. There is no entrustment of car by the de-facto complainant to A-2. There was no taking away of car by A-2 much less with any dishonest intention from A-1 or from the de-facto complainant. In absence of any of those allegations as against A-2, I am of the opinion that basic ingredients required for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420/34 I.P.C. do not exist in this case. Thus, there is no prima facie case for the prosecution as against A-2 in respect of offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420/34 I.P.C. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed quashing proceedings against the petitioner/A-2 in C.C.No.393 of 1998 on the file of III Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Rajahmundry. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J January 20, 2010 Bvv