G.R. Moolchandani, J. - (1.) This criminal misc. petition is preferred against order dated 22/04/2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh in Revision Petition No. 07/2015, dismissing the revision petition to release the vehicle on Superdgi. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he is the actual registered owner of the vehicle and the said vehicle was never sold to respondent No. 2 nor the requisite forms for effecting the transfer were executed. Moreover, the questioned vehicle has been seized from the possession of the petitioner-registered owner. The respondent has got no genuine title or possession of the vehicle involved, it was never sold to the respondent No. 2 nor its possession was handed over, so execution of alleged affidavit cannot deprive the petitioner from enjoying the use and obtaining the Supurdagi and possession of the vehicle. Both the Courts below have committed error in passing the impugned order. The petitioner is the actual registered owner having exclusive possession of the vehicle, so the petition be allowed and the impugned order be quashed and possession and Supurdagi of the vehicle may be accorded to the petitioner Mahendra son of Banwari.
(2.) Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has contended that there is no illegality in the impugned order because the said vehicle was sold to the respondent No. 2 Mahendra son of Nand Ram and respondent No. 2 is entitled to get its Supurdagi. The respondent No. 2 has also lodged a FIR under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC against its actual owner-petitioner Mahendra Singh son of Banwari, who does not have any title or claim over the vehicle, since petitioner registered owner sold it to the respondent, hence there is no illegality in the impugned order, so the revision petition be dismissed. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record and examined the impugned order. The petitioner Mahendra son of Banwari Lal claims to be the registered owner of the vehicle Bolero No. HR 22K 8297, which is stated to be recovered from the possession of Mahendra S/o. Bhanwari Lal, the registered owner, since copy of the FIR available on the record lodged by respondent No. 2-Mahendra Singh son of Nand Ram vide FIR No. 535 dated 1/12/2014 for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC, reveals that the said vehicle was there in possession of the petitioner-Mahendra son of Banwari, relevant para No. 3 of the FIR is reproduced here as under:- ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... These contents explicitly reveals that the vehicle was there in possession of the actual owner i.e. the registered owner of the vehicle Mahendra son of Banwari. It is also important that affidavit, which is stated to be executed on 15/07/2014 does have a textual recital that Mahendra Singh son of Banwari Singh is its registered owner. The Registration certificate of the said vehicle, copy of which is available on the record, is also there in the name of Mahendra son of Banwari Singh, R/o Village Banwali, District Fatehbad, Haryana, likewise primary purchase letter does also stands in the name of the petitioner, the required form Nos.29 and 30 effecting transfer under Motor Vehicle Rules have also not been executed and these contents are there in the revision preferred before the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, though copy of the affidavit has got recital of certain transaction, but it is established that the vehicle in question unequivocally stands in the name of the petitioner and undisputably petitioner Mahendra S/o. Banwari Singh is the registered owner of the vehicle in question. The contents of the FIR allegedly lodged by respondent number two, the so called purchaser of the vehicle does have a candid admission that it was left to the possession of its actual registered owner Mahendra son of Banwari Lal. Vehicle has not been transferred with registering authority and still stands in the name of the petitioner as being its registered owner.
(3.) In Munnalal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors, 2002(3) Crl.L.C 549 , in a vehicular release matter this Court has ordered to release vehicle in the name of the actual registered owner Shri Nanka, yet in another judgment in the case of Hari Mohan Agarwal v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 1997 Crl. Law Reporter (Raj.) 23 , it is held by this Court that the magistrate had no power to go into the question of title, while giving the possession of the vehicle seized. In view of the aforesaid, peculiar facts of the matter, as dwelt above, the said vehicle was primarily purchased by the petitioner Mahendra son of Banwari, which still stands in his name as its registered owner. The FIR levelling accusation of cheating does also have an assertion to this effect that the said vehicle was given immediately back to its registered owner, which has been discussed above, as mentioned in Para 3 of the FIR. In this background, the instant petition deserves to be allowed, therefore, the impugned order dated 22/04/2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh is hereby quashed and set aside. The concerned court/trial court shall release the vehicle bearing Registration No. HR 22K 8297 to the petitioner Mahendra son of Banwari, on interim custody and Supurdginama during the course of the proceedings, and the conditions earlier imposed by ACJM Court, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh under Order dated 03.03.2015 shall remain similar. The Criminal Misc. Petition stands allowed. Petition allowed.;