Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 210 (CHH)

RAMESH KUMAR THAKUR v. SUSHANT CHANDRA DEY

2006-03-23

S.K.SINHA

body2006
ORDER Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. :- 1. Being aggrieved with the order dated 14.12.2004 passed in Criminal Revision No. 104/2004 by the 9th Addl. Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Raipur, the petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. The aforesaid revision was filed against an order dated 04.3.2004 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raipur, in MJ.C. No.7/2004 whereby an application for releasing the seized vehicle on Suprudnama filed by the applicant was dismissed by the Magistrate and simultaneously it has been directed to be released in favour of respondent no. 1 in M.J.C. No. 271/2003. 2. The brief facts are that a Maruti Esteem Car bearing Regn. No.C.G.04 ZP 3683 (old no. M.P. 23/1-8149) was seized during the course of investigation of Crime No.345/2003 registered at P.S. Tikarapara, Raipur, for the offence punishable under sections 420 and 406 IPC. Thereafter, the original registration book of the vehicle was seized from the possession of the petitioner and a duplicate registration book was also seized from the possession of respondent no. 1. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he has purchased the aforesaid vehicle from one Devendra Kumar Verma on 11.8.2003 and had also received the original book of registration. Devendra Kumar Verma has also signed a T.T.O. Form in favour of the petitioner for transfer of his name as the registered owner of the vehicle. However, since the petitioner was in need of money, he without effecting the transfer on his name, handed over this vehicle to one C.G. Motors, Panchpedi Naka, Raipur for sale as a pre-owned Car with a promise that as soon as the purchaser is arranged, the petitioner will be informed by the vehicle dealer. It is alleged that the owner of the aforesaid C. G. Motors, named as Bala Subrarnanyam, absconded and when the petitioner tried to know about his vehicle, he found that the vehicle was in possession of respondent no. 1. It is after this, the vehicle was seized and the petitioner had claimed for interim custody of the vehicle. 4. The case of the respondent no. I is that he purchased this vehicle for Rs. 1,50,000/- through M/s. C.G. Motors, Raipur and on the strength of transfer of his name in the duplicate registration book on 08.9.2003 (Annexure P-8), he became the registered owner. 4. The case of the respondent no. I is that he purchased this vehicle for Rs. 1,50,000/- through M/s. C.G. Motors, Raipur and on the strength of transfer of his name in the duplicate registration book on 08.9.2003 (Annexure P-8), he became the registered owner. He is a bona fide purchaser and he was not knowing about the history of the vehicle and in all bonafide belief, he is holding the possession of the vehicle 5. It appears that on simultaneous claims being made by the petitioner as well as respondent no. I before the trial Court for releasing the vehicle on Suprudnama, the learned Magistrate called for the report from the concerned R.T.O. and has mentioned in para- 1 of the order dated 04.3.2004, the documents pertaining to the vehicle were produced before him. After perusal of the records and going through the documents filed by the parties, the Magistrate directed for releasing the -vehicle on Suprudnama of respondent no. 1 and dismissed the claim of the petitioner which was confirmed by the Addl. Sessions Judge in the revision filed by the petitioner. It is after this the petitioner has filed the petition U/S 482 Cr.P.C. and has prayed for quashment of the orders and for passing appropriate orders for releasing the vehicle in his favour. 6. Referring to the document Annexure P-4, which is a copy of the original registration book, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the first registered owner of the vehicle was M/s. Sunil Polypack Ltd., Raipur. From the first registered owner, this vehicle was transferred on the name of D.K. Verma as the subsequent purchaser and an endorsement to this effect was made in the original registration book on 16.1.2001 and thereafter, though a purchase was made earlier, but the vehicle was ultimately transferred in the name of petitioner as a registered owner on 14.10.2003. He further referred to document Annexure P-8 which is a copy of duplicate registration book in which this vehicle was shown to be transferred on the name of respondent no. 1 on 08.9.2003 directly from its first purchaser namely Sunil Polypack Limited. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner as that this apparently shows that Sunil Polypack Ltd., was not the registered owner of the vehicle on the date of sale or transfer made on the name of respondent no. 1 on 08.9.2003 directly from its first purchaser namely Sunil Polypack Limited. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner as that this apparently shows that Sunil Polypack Ltd., was not the registered owner of the vehicle on the date of sale or transfer made on the name of respondent no. 1 i.e., on 08.9.2003, therefore, any transfer made by M/s. Sunil Polypack Ltd., or on the instance of Bala Subramanyam, owner of the C.G. Motors showing the vehicle to be sold from Sunil Polypack Limited to respondent no. 1 on 08.09.2003 would be illegal on the face of original registration book in which on 16.1.2001 D.K. Verma, was already mentioned as the registered owner of the aforesaid vehicle. His submission was that the petitioner keeps a better claim in between the two rival claims, therefore, the vehicle should have been released on Supurdnama of the petitioner. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no. I argued that the respondent no. I is a bonafide purchaser who believed on the owner of C.G. Motors and his name has already been entered in the duplicate registration book of the vehicle which was seized from his possession, therefore, he should be allowed to continue with the vehicle till the [mal decision of the case. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of Misc. Petition as well as the case diary produced by the Govt. Advocate during the course of the arguments. 9. A perusal of the case diary would show that the original registration book of the vehicle has been seized by the Police from the Possession of the petitioner and the same is in the case diary. The contents of the aforesaid document show that this vehicle was firstly registered in the name of M/s. Sunil Polypack Ltd., and thereafter it was transferred on the name of one Devendra Kumar Verma on 16.1.2001. From Devendra Kumar Verma, it was again transferred on the name of the petitioner on 14.10.2003. It is clear from this document, which is the original document of the vehicle, that after 16.1.2001, M/s. Sunil Polypack Ltd., was not the registered owner of the vehicle as the registered owner was Devendra Kumar Verma and if the vehicle is purchased by respondent no. It is clear from this document, which is the original document of the vehicle, that after 16.1.2001, M/s. Sunil Polypack Ltd., was not the registered owner of the vehicle as the registered owner was Devendra Kumar Verma and if the vehicle is purchased by respondent no. 1 through C.G. Motors showing a transfer directly from Sunil Polypack Ltd. to his name on 08.09.2003 by this duplicate registration book, prima facie it cannot be said that the purchase was good and proper. When M/s. Sunil Polypack Ltd., was not the registered owner of the vehicle on 08.9.2003, any transaction shown to be made from the said first owner to this purchaser (respondent no.1) would not prima facie transfer the title in his favour. If any purchase was to be effected after 16.01.2001, the same should have been effected through Devendra Kumar Verma, the then registered owner and not through anybody else. Therefore, prima facie, the duplicate registration book issued in the name of respondent no. 1 showing him to be the owner by transfer on 8.9.2003 through a purchase from Sunil Polypack Ltd., does not appear to be valid. On the contrary, the original registration book and the documents Annexures P-1, P-2 & P-3 would show that M/s. Sunil Polypack has sold this vehicle on 12.1.2001 to D.K. Verma on the basis of which, an entry was made in the original registration book on 16.1.2001 and D.K. Verma became the registered owner on the said date and thereafter he sold this vehicle to the present applicant on 11.8.2003 and to this effect he executed the document Annexure P-1 and thereafter he also executed an affidavit dated 26.12.2003. 10. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it appears that prima facie the petitioner keeps a better title and claim over the said vehicle than the respondent no. 1 and the trial Court as well as the revisional court erred in law in holding that respondent no. I was the bonafide purchaser of the vehicle and he was entitled to retain the interim custody of the same till the disposal of the criminal case. The plea of bonafide purchaser cannot be entertained on the face of the original registration book and also on the face of the admitted fact that the respondent no. I was the bonafide purchaser of the vehicle and he was entitled to retain the interim custody of the same till the disposal of the criminal case. The plea of bonafide purchaser cannot be entertained on the face of the original registration book and also on the face of the admitted fact that the respondent no. 1 claims the ownership on the basis of a purchase being made from a person who in fact was not the registered owner either on the date of incident or on the date of alleged sale in his favour. Merely holding the possession of the vehicle on the basis of a forged transaction being effected at the instance of an accused cannot deprive a registered owner to retain the possession of his vehicle. 11. It has been brought to the notice of this court that not only these persons have been cheated but other persons have also been cheated by the owner of the C.G. Motors, who is presently absconding and the reports to this effect are also there in the case diary. However, for the foregoing reasons, in the opinion of this Court, the interim custody of the vehicle cannot be allowed to be continued with respondent no. I and the orders in this regard have to be set aside. 12. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned orders passed by the two courts below are set aside and it is directed that instead of respondent no. 1, the vehicle shall be delivered by the Magistrate to the petitioner on the same terms and conditions on which he has delivered the same to the respondent no. 1. The original registration books of the petitioner shall also be returned back to him and the copy of the same shall be retained. 13. The Magistrate shall comply with the aforesaid order forthwith and shall firstly repossess the vehicle from respondent no. 1 and shall there after deliver the same to the petitioner on the terms and conditions referred to above. The petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Petition Allowed.