S. N. DEEDWANIA, J. - (1.) THIS revision, which is directed to be treated as a petition under section 482 Cr. P. C. , is against the order dated August 22, 1980 of learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Bilara directing the interim custody of tractor No. BHR 8146 to complainant Parasmal.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the relevant facts are these. On 16. 3. 79, Parasmal lodged a report at police station, Bilara alleging that he had purchased tractor No. BHR 8146 in the month of September, 1977 from Jeevraj Singh and registration was duly transferred in his favour. On 30. 9. 77, Kailash Chandra accused took the tractor from him on hire and executed a rent-deed. Kailashchandra thereafter through his father Heeralal sold the tractor to Jassaram and thereby committed offence of criminal breach of trust punishable under section 406, I. P. C. During the course of investigation, the tractor was recovered from a 'bara'. After the investigation, now the police has submitted a final report. The case of Kailashchandra is that he purchased the tractor from Jeevraj Singh, and it was also duly registered in his name. Parasmal has some old debts outstanding against him and his father and, therefore, he forged certain documents including the alleged rent-deed and thereafter got the tractor registered in his name. It may also be stated that during the investigation, complainant Parasmal departed from the allegations made in the complaint and conceded that he did not purchase the tractor from Jeevraj Singh and took the stand that the tractor was sold to him by Kailashchandra and there after, he gave it back to him on hire. Parasmal struck to his stand that Kailashchandra has committed criminal breach of trust in respect of this tractor by selling it to Jassaram. During the investigation, it was further found that Kailashchandra had not sold or transferred the tractor to Jassaram. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record of the case carefully. It appears that the allegation regarding the purchase of the tractor by Parasmal from Jeevrajsingh was false. From the final report, it was further established that this tractor was never sold or transferred to Jassa Ram by Kailashchandra or his father. No doubt, a rent-note is in existence alleged to be executed by Kailashchandra in favour of Parasmal regarding this tractor. It further appears that on the strength of a sale-letter dated September 27, 1977 alleged to be signed by Kailashchandra, the registration entry in the certificate of registration was transferred in the name of Parasmal. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to argue that the alleged sale-letter dated Sepetember 27, 1977 and the rent-note are false documents.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the non-petitioner argued that at this stage, the trial court or this Court will not undertake an intricate enquiry to find out whether the alleged rent-note and sale letter were false documents. I am inclined to agree with this view. However, from the first information report and on the admission of Parasmal, the following undisputed facts emerge ; - 1. that Kailashchandra purchased the tractor from Jeevrajsingh and the allegation made in this behalf by Parasmal in the first information report is false; 2. that the registration was transferred the in name of Parasmal on the strength of alleged sale-letter from Kailashchandra. The disputed question is whether the alleged sale-letter and rent-note by Kailash Chandra are false documents. For the purposes of this petition, I take it that Parasmal obtained this transfer of the tractor from Kailashchandra and thereafter hired it back to him though it appears unusual that a tractor would be given on hire for Rs. 600/- per month only and no rent whatsoever would be paid by Kailashchandra to Parasmal. From the final report, and the evidence collected during the investigation, it also appears that this tractor was not sold by Kailashchandra or his father to Jassaram. Parasmal had no evidence worth the name about this alleged transfer. Jassaram has denied that this tractor was sold to him. Prima facie, therefore, no offence of criminal breach of trust was committed by Kailashchandra in respect of this tractor. The conclusion is further strengthened by the final report filed in the case. The necessary implication or the inference from the facts is that Kailashchandra was in lawful possession of the tractor as a hirer on the date the police recovered it from his possession. The question is, who is entitled to interim custody of this tractor. Before I take up this question, I may refer to some of the legal principles in this regard. It is well established that no criminal proceedings lie for a purely civil wrong, A crime may also be a tort, or a civil wrong. However, it is necessary to distinguish between a crime and purely a civil wrong or a tort. In theory, crime is essentially a wrong to the public or to the society and remedy generally is prosecution by the State and punishable under the substantive law of crimes. Such prosecution may also be started at the instance of the injured individual or on his complaint, but in the case of purely civil wrong or tort, the State has nothing to do with the enforcement of the remedy and it is left entirely to the injured-person to seek his remedy by way of a civil action. The necessary corollary is that for purely a civil wrong or a tort under the substantive law of crimes, no action lies. The criminal courts are meant to remedy a criminal wrong or to punish for a penal liability. ;