Bombay High CourtAPEAL/577/2014dismissed

M/S Shriram City Union Finance Ltd. Through Power Of Attorney Holder, Manglesh Yashwant Malewar v. Mohan Ashokrao Thakre And 3 Others

2016-03-08Hon'Ble Shri Justice Z.A. Haq2 pages

1 apeal577.14

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.577 OF 2014 (M/S. SHRIRAM CITY UNION FINANCE LTD....VS..MOHAN ASHOKRAO THAKRE & 3 OTH.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.

DATED : MARCH 08, 2016.

Heard Shri Sumit P. Bodalkar, advocate for the appellant/applicant and Shri N.B.Jawade, A.P.P. for the respondent No.4.

The appellant/ applicant is seeking leave to appeal to challenge the judgment passed by the learned Magistrate acquitting the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The appellant/ applicant filed complaint with the Police Station alleging that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 obtained loan from the appellant fraudulently by misrepresenting that they were registered owners of tractors bearing Registration No. MH-32/P-599 and MH-32/P-146. According to the appellant, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 prepared false registration certificates of the vehicles and bogus house tax receipts and furnished the bogus documents to the appellants while seeking loan. The learned Magistrate has considered the evidence on record and has concluded that even if the allegations are considered to be true, they are not sufficient to hold the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 guilty of the offences punishable

2 apeal577.14 under Sections 468, 471, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate has recorded that the appellant (complainant) has failed to establish that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have cheated the complainant by producing forged/bogus documents and securing loan from the complainant.

In my view, the judgment passed by the learned Magistrate acquitting the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 is proper. The prayer of the applicant/ appellant for grant of leave to appeal is rejected. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant challenging the judgment passed by the learned Magistrate acquitting the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 is dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.

JUDGE RRaut..