N.L.TIBREWAL,J. - (1.) This petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated May 4, 1991 of Judicial Magistrate No. 12, Jaipur City, Jaipur in criminal case No. 133/90 in relation to the custody of the truck No. RRO 5205.
(2.) The relevant facts are : The non-petitioner No. 2 Ajmer Singh (to be referred as complainant) and the petitioner Guru Charan Singh are the real brothers. The complainant filed a complainant in the court of Judicial Magistrate No. 12, Jaipur-city. Jaipur on June 8, 1990. It was forwarded under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the police station Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur. After receipt of the complainant, the police registered crime No. 133/90 under sections 420-419-467-471-477A 120B-201-234 and 251 IPC. The prosecution case, as detailed in the report, is that the petitioner Guru Charan Singh obtained a cheque of Rs. 17,400/- from United India Insurance Company Limited, Jaipur which was in the name of the complainant and deposited the said cheque in the savings bank account of the complainant in Punjab National Bank, Branch Raja Park Jaipur and thereafter, withdrew a sum of Rs. 19,000/- from the said account by making forged signature of the complainant on a bearer cheque. Another accusation against the accused-petitioner was made that he also got the transfer of the registration of the truck in his name by preparing a forged sale letter by forging the signature of the complainant on it. A perusal of the complainant shows that whatever accusations have been made against the accused-petitioner, they relate to the forgery to have been committed by the petitioner in relation to the cheque and the sale-letter for transfer of registration certificate in his name. There is no accusation that the petitioner obtained the possession of the truck in question unlawfully by exercising any fraud, misrepresentation or use of force etc.
(3.) After registration of the case, the police commenced the investigation. There is no dispute before me that the truck in question has been seized from the possession of the petitioner. In the court of the trial Magistrate, the petitioner, as well as, the complainant moved separate applications to obtain the custody of the truck. The learned Magistrate, after hearing the counsel for the parties, gave the truck in the custody of the petitioner vide his order August 1, 1990. It appears that the said order was challenged by the complainant in a revision petition in the court of District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur-city, Jaipur. The learned Judge set-aside the order of the Magistrate and directed the Magistrate to hear the matter afresh and pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law. He also directed the Magistrate to get the truck back from the petitioner: Thereafter, the matter was re-considered by the learned Magistrate and by impugned order, the Magistrate gave the custody of the truck in favour of the complainant on the terms and conditions mentioned in the order. Being aggrieved against the said order, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner.;