Nisha Gupta, J. - (1.) This criminal misc. petitions under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code have been filed against the order dated 15.10.2005 passed District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur in Criminal Revision Petition No. 19/2005 and 27/2005 whereby the order of the trial Court dated 6.8.2005 was set aside and the interim custody of the vehicle was given to respondent in Case No. 108/2005 arising out of F.I.R. No. 467/2004 registered at Police Station Vidhyakpuri District Jaipur.
(2.) The short facts of the case are that the petitioner is a non-banking finance company offering a wide range of financing facilities to its customers, such as hire purchase etc. In the year 2004, Smt. Usha Chhajer has availed finance facility from the petitioner-company and an agreement dated 26.4.2005 was entered into between the parties for the vehicle bearing registration No. RJ-14-8C- 6514. According to the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties, Smt. Usha Chhajer has agreed to pay the specified monthly installments for a period of 35 months. But after availing the finance facility, Smt. Usha Chhajer borrower started defaulting in the payment of the monthly installments and sold the hypothecated vehicle to respondent No. 1 contrary to the terms and conditions of the agreement and NOC has also been forged. The petitioner company filed F.I.R. No. 467/2004 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B Indian Penal Code During course of investigation, police seized the said car bearing registration No. RJ-14- 8C-6514. The petitioner and respondent No. 1 both moved application under Section 457, Criminal Procedure Code before the trial Court. The trial Court dismissed the application. Thereafter both petitioner and respondent No. 1 moved revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge ordered the interim custody to be given to respondent No. 1. Hence this petition.
(3.) The contention of the present petitioner is that the impugned order is self-contradictory as the learned Sessions Judge has handed over the interim custody of the vehicle to respondent No. 1, while the liberty has been given to the petitioner for taking possession of the vehicle as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. Admittedly, respondent No. 1 has taken the possession on the strength of forged NOC. He is not the best person entitled to get the possession. It was specifically agreed between the parties that if the borrower fails to pay the monthly installments within the prescribed limit, the right of borrower or any other person claiming right under him would forthwith shall be determined and the agreement would stand terminated and when Smt. Usha Chhajer has not deposited the installments in time, his right has been determined. The present petitioner has no locus standi to claim the possession of the vehicle. A single installment has not been paid by the respondent and hence the impugned order should be set aside.;