HARBANS LAL, J. - (1.) THIS criminal misc. petition Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 14.8.2001 of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jaitaran passed on an application Under Section 451 Cr.P.C. for the release of the truck in F.I.R. No. 31/2001, Police Station, Raipur.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the relevant facts are that on a complaint filed by petitioner Bhanwar Lal for the offences Under Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C., an F.I.R. No. 31/2001 was registered against the accused non -petitioner Arjun Puri. During investigation of the case the truck No. RNQ 4601 which was registered in the name of petitioner was recovered. The petitioner moved an application on 14.3.2001 and the non -petitioner moved an application on 13.3.2001 for the release of the said truck on 'Superdiginama' during the pendency of the case but the learned court below refused the application of petitioner Bhanwar Lal and accepted the application of accused non -petitioner Arjun Puri and ordered the release of the truck on 'Superdiginama' in his favour. Hence, this petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is a registered owner of the truck in question and is best entitled to the release of the truck on interim custody and the learned court below has passed the order mechanically without going into the entire record and without considering the fact that the receipt dated 24.2.2001 filed by Arjun Puri was forged and fabricated document about which the petitioner had lodged an F.I.R. which is under investigation. According to him the order of learned court below is illegal and without jurisdiction and amount to abuse of the process of the court which may be quashed in exercise of inherent powers vested in this Court Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
(3.) HE has placed reliance on following cases: 1. 1996 Gr. L.R. (Raj.) 148, Ashoka Leyland Finance Co. Ltd. Jaipur v. State of Raj. wherein the truck in question was financed by Ashoka Leyland Finance Co. Jaipur and when the instalments were not paid by Indra Singh then as per the conditions of hire purchase agreement, custody of the truck was taken by the company and, therefore, the company was found to be the best entitled person as per the conditions of hire purchase agreement for the delivery of the said truck and the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor that Indra Singh, who was registered owner of the truck was entitled to its delivery was repealed. 2. 1996 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 265, Shiv Dan Singh v. State of Raj. where one Ram Kumar, who was the registered owner of the tractor had allegedly sold it to Bhanwar Lal, who in turn sold it to Shiv Dan Singh but the tractor remained registered in the name of Ram Kumar and under these circumstances it was held that transferor could not transfer better title the than he had and Bllanwar Lal flatly denied that he ever sold the tractor to the petitioner. In this case, neither Bhanwar Lal nor Shiv Dan Singh could produce any sale deed or other document in support of their possessory title. 3. 1999 (2) R.C.C. 771, Hanuman Sahai v. State of Raj. wherein Bhanwar lal Sharma obtained the possession of the jeep after making part payment but the registered owner dispossessed him when the balance amount the remained unpaid. The police seized the vehicle and the High Court ordered the vehicle to be delivered on 'Superdiginama' to one Hanuman Sahai, who in the meanwhile purchased the vehicle and got it registered in his own name. 4. 2001(4) Crimes (S.C.) 26 Bhanwar Lal Sharma v. State of Raj. wherein, it has been held that leasing firm can repossess defaulter's car given on hire purchase agreement as per terms of the agreement and it does not amount to any criminal offence like criminal breach of trust, cheating, theft, dacoity criminal house trespass or their abetment or conspiracy. ;