Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 432 (PNJ)

Davinder v. State Of Haryana

2000-04-25

K.S.KUMARAN

body2000
Judgment K.S.Kumaran, J. 1. F.I.R. No. 44 dated 4.3.1999 under section 392 I.P.C. has been registered at Police Station Sadar, Rohtak on the statement of Ramphool Hooda son of Ram Sarup wherein it has been stated that he is the owner of the Mahamaya Finance Company and had on 20.8.1998 financed 3 trucks bearing No. HR-46-3897, HR-46-3697 and HR-46-1105. According to the complainant, the registration certificates for these vehicles were in the name of Bijender son of Tek Ram who was running those vehicles and paying the instalments. The complainant has alleged that Bijender son of Tek Ram told him that Manoj and Davinder sons of Azad Singh, Ashok Pehalwan and Harish Kumar had snatched and taken away the said vehicles near village Brahamanvas, after beating the drivers and snatching a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - from them. The request of the petitioners 1 to 4 for bail in anticipation of arrest having been declined by the Sessions Court, they have approached this Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C. But, even at the time of issuing notice, this petition in so far as it relates to the 2nd petitioner-Manoj, has been dismissed. Notice was ordered only with regard to the other petitioners - Davinder, Ashok Kumar and Harish. 2. I have heard the counsel for both the sides and perused the records on file. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that out of the three vehicles, HR-46-3897 stood registered with the R.T.A., Rohtak in the name of Azad Singh, the father of Davinder and Manoj, whereas HR-46-3697 stood registered with the R.T.A., Rohtak in the name of Ram Phal son of Inder Singh, their relation. The petitioners also contend that these two vehicles were given to Bijender for running the same on hire. According to the petitioners, Bijender was paying the hire amounts for some time, even after the death of Azad Singh on 10.12.1996, but later on stopped making payments inspite of demand. The petitioners contend that they came to know that Bijender had got these vehicles transferred in his name with the R.T.A., Charkhi Dadri on 4.9.1997. It is alleged that he fraudulently produced a forged affidavit of Azad Singh dated 3.9.1997 (annexure P-6) by making somebody impersonate as Azad Singh, who had died even on 10.12.1996. The petitioners contend that they came to know that Bijender had got these vehicles transferred in his name with the R.T.A., Charkhi Dadri on 4.9.1997. It is alleged that he fraudulently produced a forged affidavit of Azad Singh dated 3.9.1997 (annexure P-6) by making somebody impersonate as Azad Singh, who had died even on 10.12.1996. The petitioners also contend that Manoj had lodge a report against Bijender in F.I.R. No. 21 dated 15.2.1999 at Police Station, Kharkhoda regarding this fraudulent transfer and F.I.R. No. 23 dated 16.12.1999 has been lodged by Ram Phal son of Inder Singh at Police Station, Kharkhoda against Bijender Singh regarding the fraudulent transfer of his vehicle in the name of Bijender. The petitioners have produced copies of the FIRs as annexures P-4 and P-5 and copy of affidavit of Bijender as annexure P-8, wherein he had alleged that he had purchased these vehicles. 4. The petitioners have also produced letters from the Secretary to R.T.A., Rohtak to the A.S.I. Police Station Kharkhoda stating that,vehicle - HR-46- 3897 is owned by Azad Singh and has not been transferred, while the vehicle - HR-46- 3697 is owned by Ram Phal son of Inder Singh and has not been transferred (Annexures P-9 and P-10). 5. So far as the third vehicle - HR-46-1105 is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that Bijender who was the owner of this vehicle, has sold this vehicle to Ram Phal son of under Singh on 17.2.1998 and has also executed a General Power-of-Attorney (annexure P-11) stating that he has received Rs. 2 lacs and the remaining sum of Rs. 58,000/- due to Mahamaya Finance Company which financed this vehicle, had to be paid. The petitioners have also produced the receipt allegedly issued by Bijender on 17.2.1998 for the receipt of money, and also the affidavit of the same date allegedly executed by Bijender with regard to this sale. 6. Therefore, in these circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that there is no question of the petitioners snatching these vehicles or the money from the drivers of these vehicles, as alleged. The learned counsel for the petitioners also points out that the present F.I.R. has been lodged on the complaint given by Ramphool Hooda, the owner of Mahamaya Finance Company as a counterblast to the FIRs registered against Bijender at Police Station, Kharkhoda. The learned counsel for the petitioners also points out that the present F.I.R. has been lodged on the complaint given by Ramphool Hooda, the owner of Mahamaya Finance Company as a counterblast to the FIRs registered against Bijender at Police Station, Kharkhoda. He also points out that the allegation in the F.I.R. is that Ramphool Hooda was informed by Bijender about the alleged occurrence. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the F.I.R. is vague inasmuch as even the date and time of the offence and the name or names of the drivers or cleaners have not been mentioned. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that no offence is made out against the petitioners under Section 392 I.P.C. He also contends that petitioners 1, 3 and 4 have joined investigation. 7. The learned counsel for the State points out that as per the statement of Bijender and his drivers - Jai Bhagwan, Ram Deed and Krishan Kumar, the occurrence had taken place on 10.2.1999 and that Rs. 10,000/- was snatched from them, recovery of which has to be effected yet. The learned counsel for the State also points out that documents are yet to be verified. 8. Taking into consideration the arguments of both the sides, but at the same time, without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that petitioners 1, 3 and 4 are entitled to be released on bail. 9. The petition is allowed. In the event of arrest of petitioners 1, 3 and 4 - Davinder, Ashok Kumar and Harish on the allegations found in the F.I.R. mentioned in this petition, they are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing sufficient surety to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. Petitioners 1, 3 and 4 shall also abide by the provisions of section 438(2) Cr.P.C.