Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 295 (RAJ)

Man Mohan Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2007-02-09

DALIP SINGH

body2007
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor. 2. This petition has been filed by one Man Mohan challenging the order dated 24.6.2006 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Badi and the order dated 6.9.2006 passed by the learned Special Judge (Decoity Affected Areas) Dholpur upholding the order dated 25.4.2006 dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner. 3. The facts in nutshell are that the non-petitioner No. 2 Shaukat All Khan was the owner of the truck bearing registration No. MP 06/E-2615. An FIR was lodged by the non-petitioner No. 2 against one Rajveer for the offence under Section 420 and 406 IPC. In pursuance of the aforesaid FIR no. 72/2006 lodged at police station Badi, District Dholpur, the truck in question was seized by the police and recovered from the possession of one petitioner Manmohan. 4. The petitioner Man Mohan filed an application under Section 457 Cr.PC. for the delivery of truck on supurdagi on the ground that the petitioner Man Mohan had purchased the said truck from the non-petitioner No. 2 Shokat All vide Annexure-1 an agreement/sale letter dated 18.11.2004 for a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/-. The said document has been filed as Annexure-1 to this petition. In Para 2 of the tame, it has been stated that the party of the first Part, namely Shokat All after having received the entire consideration of Rs. 3,50,000/- in cash has sold the truck bearing M.P. 06/E-2615 to the party of the Ilnd Part, namely Man Mohan. It has specifically been stated therein that after receiving the amount in cash from Man Mohan nothing further remains to be paid by way of consideration. 5. In Para 3, it has been stated that as a result of the sale having been concluded, the possession of the truck as well as sale letter after duly signed has been handed over to the Party of the Second Part i.e. Manmohan, the petitioner herein and that it is open for the party of the Ilnd Part to get the truck in question registered in his name and use the same in the manner he so likes. It has also been stated that if there are any dues, for the same, the same shall be liable to be borne by the party of the Ist Part up to the date of the sale i.e. 18.11.2004. It has also been stated that if there are any dues, for the same, the same shall be liable to be borne by the party of the Ist Part up to the date of the sale i.e. 18.11.2004. The case of the petitioner is that the aforesaid documents after having been executed along with other documents i.e. Form No. 29 and Form, No. 30, the petitioner applied for the change of registration in his favour and as a result thereof, the registering authority issued the certificate of registration Annexure-4 in favour of the petitioner. Photo copy of which has been filed as Annexure-4. The application for the transfer was submitted on 10.6.2005 and the registration certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner Manmohan on 17.6.2005. Thereafter, the petitioner got the vehicle in question insured. A copy of the cover note of Insurance showing name of Man Mohan petitioner has been filed as Annexure-5 and the petitioner obtained a permit for using the vehicle as a public carrier which has been filed as Annexure-6. The aforesaid permit was issued on 13.6.2005. 6. The petitioner therefore, on the strength of the above, claiming to be the registered owner having registration and insurance and permit in his favour applied for the vehicle in question to be given to him on supurdagi. 7. On the side of the respondent No. 2 while opposing the application of the petitioner, it was submitted that in fact there was no sale contract between the petitioner and the non-petitioner No. 2, but the vehicle had in fact had been agreed to be sold to one Rajveer for a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- and that said Rajveer only paid a sum of Rs. 15,000/- while entering into the contract, and an amount of Rs. 3,15,000/- still remains to be paid by him and he has not only defrauded and cheated the respondent No. 2 but the petitioner by fabricating documents dated 18.11.2004 and the signature on Form No. 29 and 30 have got the registration transferred in his favour. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner cannot be allowed to use the vehicle on the basis of the aforesaid forced documents and is not entitled to its custody. 8. The learned Addl. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner cannot be allowed to use the vehicle on the basis of the aforesaid forced documents and is not entitled to its custody. 8. The learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate while rejecting the application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 25.4.2006, looking to the facts of the case, came to the conclusion that on account of there being a complaint against Man Mohan filed by non-petitioner No. 2 for having allegedly fabricated the documents and getting registration transferred in his favour, the application filed "by Man Mohan was rejected. The prayer made by respondent No. 2 for the vehicle to be handed over to respondent No. 2 on supurdagi was also declined and it was directed that the vehicle in question shall be retained in police custody. 9. It has also come on record that against the order of transfer of vehicle by the Registering authority at Murena, the non-petitioner No. 2 had filed an objection before the registering authority RTO Murena who passed an order on 30th June, 2005 revoking the registration made in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order dated 30th June, 2005 before the Transport Appellate Authority Gwalior (MP) who vide his order dated 17.2.2006 initially stayed the operation of the order dated 30th June, 2005 and the order dated 17.5.2006 was confirmed subsequently vide order Annexure-11 dated 13.7.2006. From the above, the following facts emerged : (i) The vehicle in question was recovered from the possession of the petitioner Man Mohan; (ii) The vehicle in question is registered in the name of the petitioner Man Mohan; (iii) The insurance certificate and permit for the vehicle to be used as public carrier are in the name of petitioner Man Mohan; (iv) There is a document of sale allegedly executed by non-petitioner No. 2 in favour of the petitioner Man Mohan on 18.11.2004; (v) Form No. 29 & 30 for transfer of registration are also alleged to have been executed by the non-petitioner No. 2 and which allegedly bear the signature of non-petitioner No. 2. 10. While it is true that the question regarding genuineness of the alleged documents namely the sale agreement dated 18.11.2004, the transfer application Form No. 29 and 30 are the subject matter of investigation inquiry and the genuineness of which has to be determined by the court. 10. While it is true that the question regarding genuineness of the alleged documents namely the sale agreement dated 18.11.2004, the transfer application Form No. 29 and 30 are the subject matter of investigation inquiry and the genuineness of which has to be determined by the court. It is also true that no useful purpose would be served by detaining the vehicle in question in the police custody at the police station which would only subject to decay without use by either of the party. Since the vehicle in question is reinstated in the name of the petitioner, the petitioner has the right and liability under the Motor Vehicle Act in respect of vehicle. The non-petitioner No. 2 at the moment not being the registered owner cannot be allowed the custody of the vehicle as that would be contrary to the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act. 11. Having said so, the interest of non-petitioner No. 2, has also to be protected that in case he is able to prove that the petitioner has obtained registration of the vehicle by way of fraud, the non-petitioner would be deprived of not only the vehicle for which he has not received the consideration as alleged by him, but also is earning from the vehicle. 12. In the interest of justice, therefore, the court would be required to weigh the equities in favour of both. 13. Consequently, it is hereby directed that the vehicle in question would be released to the petitioner Manmohan the present registered owner on supurdagi by the court on his furnishing a surety to the satisfaction of the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Badi, District Dholpur for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- for the production of the vehicle in a running condition as and when required by the court. The petitioner would also be required to keep the vehicle in question fully insured for all liability as required by the Motor Vehicles Act at all times. Petitioner shall also ensure that the vehicle in question is not driven by any unauthorized person. The petitioner would also maintain and furnish a statement of account of the business on account of the running of vehicle quarterly before this court. 14. Petitioner shall also ensure that the vehicle in question is not driven by any unauthorized person. The petitioner would also maintain and furnish a statement of account of the business on account of the running of vehicle quarterly before this court. 14. At the end of the trial, if however, the case of the non-petitioner No. 2 is found proved and the petitioner is bound to have been utilised vehicle and 'obtained the same by fraud the petitioner would not only be liable to prosecution for the same but he would also be liable to pay an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the non-petitioner No. 2 which would be recovered from him along with vehicle in question from the surety furnished before the learned Magistrate. 15. This petition is disposed of as aforesaid.Petition Disposed of as Above. *******