M.A.A. Khan, J. - (1.) -Parties to this unfortunate litigation are a daughter and her father and this petition under section 482 Cr.PC. arrays them on opposite sides under the following peculiar circumstances :
(2.) Kanta Toshan, the petitioner, is the married daughter of Mata Din Sharma Joshi, Respondent No. 2. According to the petitioner, in order to augment her income she thought of plying a video coach on Jaipur-Ganganagar route and stood in need of raising Bank loan to purchase a vehicle for the said purpose. Her brother, Ashok Kumar, was an employee with the Rajasthan Co-operative Bank. Her father, Respondent No. 2, advised her to raise the loan from the Bank in his name as that would facilitate early sanction of the loan by the Bank and that she would re-pay the said loan as per instalments stipulated and after she had discharged the Bank liability he would get the vehicle transferred in her name. A writing to that effect was also allegedly written (Ann. II) between the parties. A loan of Rs. 6 Lakhs was accordingly obtained from the Bank in the name of Matadin Resp. against Chassis No. 1510 (Tata) in the year 1995. The petitioner incurred a further expenditure of Rs.3,25,850/- on body-building of the vehicle and the first insurance policy was also obtained from Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Jaipur in the name of Matadin, the registered owner of the vehicle. But, as per agreement between the daughter and the father the possession of the vehicle remained with the daughter-petitioner. The petitioner started to ply the vehicle on the Jaipur-Ganganager route through the agency of Deepak Travels, owned by one Hazari Lal. It was also being plied for tourist parties. The petitioner continued to pay the Bank instalments, State Road Tax and other usual taxes in respect to the vehicle in question viz 14-P-4578.
(3.) When the vehicle in question was being plyed in the manner stated above it so happened that the police officials at Police Station Ratangarh checked the vehicle at 1.00 A.M. on 13.6.96 at Sangam Chauraha Ratangarh and seized the same for violating the provisions of the the Motor Vehicle Act, Hazari Lal, as Driver of the vehicle and Matadin Respondent No. 2 as owner thereof were challenged in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh. On 15.6.96 the learned Magistrate, on an application made by Mata din Resp. before him, ordered for the release of the seized vehicle on the supardgi of the said Respondent. Here the case of Matadin Respondent is that after having executed the required supardginama in the court when he reached the police station Ratangarh alongwith the order of the court Ram Kishan ASI told him that Hazari Lal Driver, Jagdev Singh and Vinod Kumar Toshan (the son-in-law of Resp. No. 2) had already taken the said vehicle and that they would deliver the possession thereof to him at Jaipur. The case of the police however, is that the vehicle had been seized in connection with crime No. 95/96 registered at the police station on 23.5.96 for offences under section 279/337/338 IPC and on receipt of the order of the court dated 19.6.96 the same was released in favour of Matadin Resp. The case of the petitioner on this point is that after getting the delivery of the vehicle on his supardgi from the police at RS. Ratangarh Matadin Resp. delivered the possession thereof to the petitioner after receiving a sum of Rs. 15,000/- from her. In this behalf it may be mentioned that Resp. Matadin appears to have taken no steps till 21.2.97 with regard to the non-delivery of the vehicle to him by the police official at Police Station, Ratangarh. On 21.2.97 he moved an application in the court of the learned Magistrate complaining that the possession of the vehicle was not delivered to him by the police as per court's order dated 19.6.96. The learned Magistrate called for a report from the Police Station Ratangrah and on conducting enquiry held that the vehicle had been duly handed over by the Police at Ratangarh to the Respondent Matadin and that if he was in any way cheated and dishonestly induced to re-transfer the possession thereof by the petitioner to her and her men, he (the father-Respondent) may take steps according to law. After the learned Magistrate had passed his order on 17.3.97 in the manner stated above Matadin Respondent filed a complaint in the court of the learned Magistrate on 1/2.5.97 against Vinod Kumar (his son-in-law), Jagdev Singh, Hazari Lal and Ram Kishan ASI, Police Station Ratangarh and further requested the learned Magistrate to get the complaint investigated by DSY, Ratangarh or S.R Churu. The learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint to SHO. PS. Ratangarh under section 156(3) for investigation and report according to law. On the basis of the complaint F.I.R. No. 114 of 1997 dated 16.6.97 under section 420, 406 and 120B IPC was registered against the above named persons and the case is being investigated.;