- (1.) TWO trucks bearing registration no. NL -01K/0835 and NL -011C/0761 were initially purchased by the opposite party no. 2 under a hire purchase scheme, on being financed by the opposite party no. 3. Since the opposite party no. 2 failed to pay the instalments in due time, the opposite party no. 3, the financier invoking the default clause contained in the hire purchase agreement repossessed the vehicle and sold it out to one Subrata Roy against valuable consideration. Thereafter, the petitioner purchased the said two vehicles from the said Subrata Roy against valuable consideration and after execution of all necessary documents.
(2.) IN the meantime, the opposite party no. 2 lodged a complaint with Bally Police Station which gave rise to Bally Police Station Case No. 107 of 2013 under Sections 143/342/323/379 of the Indian Penal Code against the officers of the Finance Company i.e. the opposite party no. 3. Upon registration of the said FIR, both the vehicles were seized by the police in connection with that case and on the prayer of the petitioner, the interim custody of the vehicles were given to the petitioner on condition that he shall not change the nature and character of the vehicles and shall not sale or transfer of the vehicles and shall produce the same as an when directed. Now, the investigation is over and after conclusion of the investigation, police has submitted report in final form with a prayer for discharge of the accused persons from the case.
(3.) AFTER filing of the police report, the petitioner made a prayer seeking permission from the Court to enable him to sell out the vehicles. The learned Magistrate rejected such prayer hence, this criminal revision. I have gone through the impugned order, I find the learned Magistrate rejected the petitioner's prayer permitting him to sell the vehicle precisely on the ground, as the service return of the notice intimating the de facto complainant about submission of final report has not been received back and the stage has not reached for considering the question of acceptance of FRT. I do not find any wrong in the order impugned and learned Magistrate very rightly did not recall the condition subject to which the interim custody of the vehicle was given to the petitioner till the FRT is accepted.;