Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2587 (RAJ)

Subhash Chandra Jhanwar v. State of Rajasthan

2006-08-29

H.R.PANWAR

body2006
JUDGMENT 1. - By the instant criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Code' hereinafter), the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.4.1999 passed by the.judicial Magistrate, Mandal, District Bhilwara (for short, 'the trial Court' hereinafter) in F.I.R. Case No. 168/1998, Police Station, Mandal, whereby the application filed by non-petitioner No. 3 Jeevraj Singh under Section 457 of the Code was allowed and the application filed by the petitioner under Section 457 of the Code was dismissed. While allowing the application filed by non-petitioner No. 3 Jeevraj Singh, the vehicle bearing Registration No. RJ 06-C-2587 was given on interim custody to the non-petitioner No. 3 Jeevraj Singh. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the material on record including the impugned order. 3. It appears that the vehicle in question was purchased by the petitioner on being financed by non-petitioner No. 2 Anagram Finance Company. The said vehicle was purchased on hire-purchase basis and the petitioner was to pay the cost of the vehicle in instalments to the financer i.e. non-petitioner No. 2 Anagram Finance Company. Tire petitioner failed to pay the regular instalments and, therefore, the non-petitioner No. 2 re-possessed the vehicle as per the agreement between the petitioner and the non-petitioner No. 2. The non-petitioner No. 2, while financing the amount, reserved its right to re-possess the vehicle in the event of failure of the petitioner to pay the regular instalments. Thereafter the non-petitioner No. 2 sold the vehicle in question to non-petitioner No. 3 Jeevraj Singh by a valid document and on payment of consideration. The trial Court, considering the fact that the vehicle was re-possessed by the financer i.e. non-petitioner No. 2 in terms of the contract between the petitioner and non-petitioner No. 2 and thereafter a No Dues Certificate was issued and it was the financer who sold the vehicle to the non-petitioner No. 3 Jeevraj Singh, therefore, at any rate the non-petitioner No. 3 was in the lawful possession of the vehicle and considering the non-petitioner No. 3 Jeevraj Singh to be the best person to get the interim custody of the vehicle, passed the impugned order giving interim custody of the vehicle, to him. In my view, the trial Court was justified in giving the interim custody of the vehicle to non-petitioner No. 3 Jeevraj Singh. In my view, the trial Court was justified in giving the interim custody of the vehicle to non-petitioner No. 3 Jeevraj Singh. In pursuance of the order dated 15.4.1999 passed by the trial Court, the non-petitioner No. 3 is in the possession of the vehicle in question for more than seven years. In the circumstances, therefore, no case for interference in the impugned order in inherent jurisdiction is made out. 4. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the criminal miscellaneous petition and it is dismissed accordingly.Petition dismissed. *******