GITABEN RAJENDRAKUMAR PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who is the registered owner of the vehicle in question has prayed for to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned City & Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad passed in Criminal Revision Application No.149 of 2007 dated 25.5.2007 and consequently confirmed the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad dated 19.3.2007 passed in Inquiry Case No.44 of 2006/ M Case No.2 of 2006 and consequently to give the custody of the Maruti Carin question to the petitioner.

(2.) THAT the petitioner is the registered owner of the Maruti Car in question being No. GJ-9B-2763. It appears that the said Maruti Car was agreed to be sold to respondent no.2 herein and it is the case of the applicant that he paid only Rs.1101/- as token and thereafter he took the test drive and did not return the said Maruti Car to the petitioner. Therefore, the husband of the petitioner filed one complaint against respondent no.2 and one Baldevbhai D. Patel in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 114 of the IPC, which was registered as Inquiry Case No.44 of 2006. It appears that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate passed an order for police investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the same was sent to the Meghaninagar Police Station for investigation. It appears that during the course of the investigation, respondent no.3 ? Investigating Officer of the Meghaninagar Police Station seized the said Maruti Car. Therefore, the petitioner submitted the application under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for custody of the said muddamal Car. THAT the respondent no.2 also preferred similar application requesting to hand over the custody of the said Maruti Car to him. It appears that thereafter by order dated 19.3.2007, the learned Magistrate Court No.3 allowed the application submitted by the petitioner and rejected the application submitted by the respondent no.2 herein and directed to hand over the custody of the muddamal Maruti Car to the petitioner on condition to furnish / give security of Rs. 90,000/- and on the terms and conditions mentioned in the said order dated 19.3.2007. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court No.3 dated 19.3.2007 in directing to hand over the custody of the Muddamal Car to the petitioner, respondent no.2 preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 149 of 2007 before the learned City and Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad and the Revisional Court by impugned judgment and order has allowed the said Criminal Revision Application and has quashed and set aside the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and has directed to hand over the custody of the Muddmal Maruti Car to respondent no.2 on furnishing/ executing the Bond or Solvency of Rs. 70,000/- or security of like amount and on further condition that till the trial is concluded he shall not transfer / alienate and / or change the condition of the Maruti Car. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Revisional Court, the petitioner has preferred present Special Criminal Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) SHRI Dabhi, learned APP appearing for the State has requested to pass appropriate order considering the facts and circumstances of the case.