Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1 (RAJ)

Yogendra v. Om Prakash Kabra

2005-01-01

H.R.PANWAR

body2005
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Public Prosecutor. None present for the respondent No. 1 though served. 2. By this criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with 401 CrPC, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.09.2004 passed by Sessions Judge, Dungarpur (for short the revisional Court hereinafter) in Criminal Revision Petition No. 14/2004 whereby the revisional Court allowed the revision petition filed by respondent No. 1 Om Prakash Kabra against the order dated 12.08.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Aspur (for short the trial Court hereinafter) and remanded the case to the trial Court to decide it afresh keeping in view the observations made therein. Aggrieved by the order of the revisional Court by which the case was remanded to the trial Court, the petitioner has filed the instant revision petition. 3. I have perused the orders of the revisional Court as well as trial Court as also the record. 4. According to the petitioner who claims himself to be the registered owner of Maruti Van Car, the car was given to one Atish Kumar for sell. Atish Kumar sold the said vehicle to respondent No. 1 Om Prakash Kabra. The case has been primarily set up by the present petitioner against Atish Kumar. The trial Court while directing delivery of the car in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 12.08.2004 addressed itself in the order that respondent No. 1 Om Prakash Kabara is an accused in the case, whereas the factual matrix is altogether different. In the case lodged by the petitioner, one Atish Kumar is an accused and not the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 came with a case that he is a bonafide purchaser of the car for a valuable consideration, in support of which he has produced certain documents. This fact was not considered by the trial Court while delivering the possession of the car to the present petitioner on the strength that the registration stands in the name of the present petitioner. By an elaborate and well-reasoned order, relying on a number of decisions of this Court, the revisional Court set aside the order of trial Court and remanded the matter. On a close scrutiny of the order of revisional Court, I do not find any error in the order impugned. By an elaborate and well-reasoned order, relying on a number of decisions of this Court, the revisional Court set aside the order of trial Court and remanded the matter. On a close scrutiny of the order of revisional Court, I do not find any error in the order impugned. On the contrary, the revisional Court has rightly remanded the matter to the trial Court to decide it in accordance with law. The petitioner has not been rendered remediless. The petitioner is to agitate the matter before the trial Court and the trial Court shall expeditiously decide the matter afresh as directed by the revisions Court. 5. The revision petition lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly. The stay petition also stands dismissed.