Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 29Ct. Cases 954/2024
Azad Singh Mann Vs. Sandeep Sharma
PS (Prashant Vihar)
10.03.2025
Present: Ld. counsel for complainant.
Matter is pending for order on the application u/s
156 (3) Cr.P.C/175(3) BNSS.
Arguments have already been heard.
Brief facts of the case are that on 04.10.2023, son of
the complainant namely Aman Singh Maan contacted the
accused no1 namely Sandeep Sharma who claims himself the
owner/proprietor of Bharat Express Cargo Carrier and himself
told that his company is situated and running their business from
their registered office address Sector-18, Satguru Enclave,
Maruti Gate No.1, Gurugram Haryana. Accused no.1 assured
that he will carry vehicle i.e. make Altroz Car from Delhi to
Mumbai and assured vehicle will be delivered at complainant’s
residence within 4-5 days and total cost will be Rs. 10,000/- and
further assured that there will be no extra/hidden charges.
Thereafter, on 06.10.2023, accused no.1 got collected the car
bearing no. DL-11CE-1490 make Altroz by one person namely
Haridner Partap Singh (herein accused no.2) from residence of
complainant with audio meter reading 486 KM. That on
07.10.2023, when complainant inquired about the status of the
car and dispatched builty that it was informed by accused no.1
to him that vehicle could not be sent due to over load and will be
sent on 08.10.2023. Thereafter, the said vehicle was delivered to
the complainant with audio meter reading i.e. 703 km which was
more than 200 in difference in the initial auto meter.
-- 1 of 2 --
Complainant has placed on record one quotation dated
04.10.2023 at page no. 32 of the Car Altroz wherein rate of the
freight charges mentioned as Rs. 10,000/- per MT. Further it is
alleged that vehicle of the complainant was used for their
personal activities and vehicle was carried out by the road as
vehicle crossed Toll Plaza in Maharashtra and amount for the
same was got deducted from the fast track of the complainant.
Complainant has placed on record the details of Toll Plaza.
Instead, same was decided to be carried by carrier/truck.
Heard. Record perused.
Court is of the view that matter is documentary in
nature and identity of the accused persons are already in the
knowledge of the complainant. Furthermore, it is nowhere
mentioned in the quotation dated 04.10.2023 that before taking
the said car as to be transferred/delivered through the carrier,
meter reading of the said vehicle was 486 km. Applicant has
placed on record some photographs of the meter of the vehicle at
page no.37 but same is nowhere reflected that as to which date
those photographs belong. Therefore, the averments of the
complainant that vehicle was used for the personal purpose and
said vehicle was used for more than 200 kms is not supported by
any evidence.
In view of the observation, court is not inclined to
pass any direction for registration of FIR. Accordingly,
application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C/175(3) BNSS is hereby dismissed.
Complainant is at liberty to proceed for the
complainant u/s 200 Cr.P.C/223 BNSS on 07.06.2025.
ROHIT KUMAR
JMFC(North) Rohini Courts
Delhi/10.03.2025/Court No. 14
-- 2 of 2 --