Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 135 (PAT)

Amar Jyoti v. State Of Bihar

2008-01-22

ABHIJIT SINHA

body2008
Judgment Abhijit Sinha, J. 1. This application by one of the accused of Nawadah Town P.S. Case No. 182 of 2006 arising out of Complaint Case No. 777 of 2005 has been filed for quashing of the order dated 27.12.2005 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawadah whereby the Indemnity bond of the Opposite Party No. 2 herein was accepted and the seized Maruti Esteem Car bearing Registration No. D2-4CD-3523 was allegedly in a wrong and illegal manner handed over to O.P. No. 2 herein. 2. The facts of the case may be noticed with brevity. Opposite Party No. 2 herein, Ranjit Kumar, filed the aforesaid complaint case on 5.8.2005 inter alia stating that he lived as a tenant in the house of the accused persons who were uncle and nephew by relationship and a cordial relationship of faith and trust in each other had developed. It is alleged that on 16.7.2005 he had purchased a Maruti Esteem Car from one K.S. Shethi in Delhi bearing Engine No. 0506433, Chasis No. 306399, Model-1995 and he had conveyed the same to the accused persons. The news of the purchase of the car appears to have aroused a sense of mischief in the mind of the accused persons who felt that the complainant had lots of money which they could usurp fraudulently and with that motive and in conspiracy they on 5.8.2005 requested the complainant to give the documents relating to the car to them so that they could peruse the same and see that the same were in order. The complainant is said to have immediately handed over the papers to the accused persons and after going through the same they told the complainant that the insurance document was not in order and had to be rectified and as they were employed in the Insurance Company he should leave the document with them and the rectification of the insurance documents would entail a cost of Rs. 30,000.00. The complainant in good faith paid a sum of Rs. 30,000.00 to the accused persons on 7.9.2005 and the accused persons obtained the signature of the complainant on some blank sheets of paper and a non judicial stamp paper under the pretext that the same would be used in rectifying the insurance documents. 30,000.00. The complainant in good faith paid a sum of Rs. 30,000.00 to the accused persons on 7.9.2005 and the accused persons obtained the signature of the complainant on some blank sheets of paper and a non judicial stamp paper under the pretext that the same would be used in rectifying the insurance documents. They also gave an assurance that they would give the rectified insurance documents along with all other documents within 15 days. When the same was not returned to the complainant within the stipulated time he made a request for the same and he was told that another 15 days would be required. The complainant is said to have approached the accused persons again after the prescribed time but the accused persons avoided returning the papers whereupon the complainant got suspicious and started making inquiries and learnt that both the accused were frauds. On 1.10.2005, the complainant claims to have demanded the return of his money as also the documents relating to the car whereupon the accused persons got furious, abused him and gave out that the car now belonged to them and if he wanted the documents he had to pay another Rs. 10,000.00 and showed him an affidavit allegedly bearing his signature and indicating that Rs. 10,000.00 was due. 3. The complaint petition was sent to the concerned police station by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate under Sec. 156(3) Cr.P.C. on the basis whereof Nawadah Town P.S. Case No. 182 of 2006 was registered under Sections 406, 420/34 I.P.C. 4. It appears that the petitioner filed a petition for recall of the orders dated 27.12.2005 and 2.1.2006 whereby the seized Maruti Esteem Car was released by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawadah in favour of the complainant, Ranjit Kumar, which was ceremoniously rejected in a wrongful and illegal manner. 5. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that although the car was registered in the name of the petitioner and the insurance papers of the car also stood in his name, the learned Magistrate had in contravention of Rule 48 of the Motor Vehicles Rules released the car in favour of the complainant. It has further been submitted that the petitioner happens to be the real owner of the car and had purchased the same from one K.S. Shethi in Delhi on 16.7.2005 on a consideration of Rs. It has further been submitted that the petitioner happens to be the real owner of the car and had purchased the same from one K.S. Shethi in Delhi on 16.7.2005 on a consideration of Rs. 95,000.00 and that the said K.S. Shethi on receiving the consideration money had handed over the vehicle as also the relevant papers to the petitioner after signing the transfer papers for transfer of ownership in the name of the petitioner. It has also been submitted that the petitioner filed all the concerned papers before the District Transport Officer who after verifying all the papers transferred the name of the petitioner in the owner book, a copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the petition. 6. It appears that after the petitioner had filed the petition for release of the vehicle in his favour, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawadah, called for a report from the police and the police submitted a report saying that there were two claimants of the car, namely, Amar Jyoti and Ranjit Kumar. From the impugned order of the learned Magistrate, it appears that according to the police report the car had been seized from the possession of the O.P. No. 2 and that the said K.S. Shethi, the previous owner of the car in question, had sold the same to Ranjit Kumar, the O.P. No. 2 herein and it was on this basis that the learned Magistrate had directed for release of the seized vehicle in favour of O.P. No. 2 herein on executing a bond of Rs. 1,00,000.00 with two sureties of the like amount each which had been submitted by O.P. No. 2 herein and the car was directed to be released in his favour vide order dated 2.1.2006. 7. Since the order of the learned Magistrate is based on the report of the police, there is no illegality or impropriety in the said order. So far as the points raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are concerned, they are all matters of disputed question of fact and his defence which can be looked into during the trial when evidence is led in the matter and not in a proceeding under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. It is only in the trial that the bonafides of the documents produced by the petitioner can be tested on adducing proper evidence. 8. 8. Due regard being had to the facts and the circumstances of the case, I find no merit in this application, which is accordingly dismissed.