Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 387 (RAJ)

Atma Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2009-02-06

MANAK MOHTA

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 28.08.08 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner in Revision Petition No.113/2008 filed by respondent No.2 Vikram Singh, by which the learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision petition and reversed the order passed by of learned Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner with regard to handing over the vehicle on Supurdginama, which was recovered in connection with FIR No.75/2008 under sections 380, 381, 420/120-B IPC. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on the complaint of respondent No.2 Vikram Singh , a case vide FIR No.75/2008 was registered under sections 420, 380, and 381/120B IPC stating interalia that he purchased vehicle on 27.06.2006 through an agreement to sale by Baljinder Singh after paying consideration of Rs. 2,11,000/-. One Shubhkaran was his servant, who took away the jeep from Surender Mistri, to whom jeep was given for repairing. He further alleged that Shubhkaran, with an intent to grab the jeep, took away the jeep from Surender Mistri and with the connivance of other accused, prepared forged documents. The police investigated the matter and recovered the said jeep . The police, after thorough investigation, filed challan against Shubbhkaran, Vikas Sharma and Atma Ram, the present petitioner, under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. During investigation, the record of the said vehicle No.RSC-7378 was examined. 3. The complainant Vikram Singh moved an application for handing over the concerned vehicle, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, on the basis that by way of said agreement dated 27.06.06 he has purchased the vehicle after paying consideration and he is the rightful owner. On the other hand, the present petitioner also moved an application on the strength of being registered owner of the said vehicle and prayed that vehicle be handed over to him. 4. The learned Judicial Magistrate, after considering the arguments of both the applicants, vide order dated 15.05.08, allowed the application of petitioner in his favour and ordered to hand over the said vehicle on Supurdginama. Against the said order, respondent No.2 filed the revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner, who vide impugned order dated 28.08.08, reversed the said order and ordered that concerned vehicle be handed over on Supurdginama to respondent No.2, complainant. Against that, the present revision has been filed. Against the said order, respondent No.2 filed the revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner, who vide impugned order dated 28.08.08, reversed the said order and ordered that concerned vehicle be handed over on Supurdginama to respondent No.2, complainant. Against that, the present revision has been filed. Notice of this revision was issued , record was called and arguments were heard. 5. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the grounds agitated before the learned lower courts that petitioner is the registered owner of the jeep bearing No.RSC- 7378 and the vehicle has been recovered during investigation of FIR No.75/2008. It was contended that false case has been lodged. It was further submitted that the petitioner purchased the said vehicle from one Vikas Sharma, who had purchased the vehicle from original R/C holder Shrawan. Therefore, he was entitled to retain that vehicle. It was urged that the learned revisional court, without proper appreciation of facts and law, erroneously reversed the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate and has ordered to hand over the vehicle on Supurdginama to respondent No.2. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner also drew my attention towards the material collected during the course of investigation by the police and submitted that the police has not properly investigated the matter . It was prayed that the impugned order may be set aside and the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate be restored. 6. On the contrary, learned counsel for respondent No.2, refuted the contention and submitted that the petitioner is an accused in this case and there are serious allegations of forgery against him regarding false transfer of vehicle, as well as getting registration in his name. The registration certificate, on which the petitioner has based his claim, is not genuine and everything are to be scrutinised during trial of the case. Attention was drawn towards the material collected by the police during investigation. It was urged that the learned Sessions Judge, after perusing the records and appreciating the facts , has rightly reversed the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, that does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality , that should be maintained and the revision may be dismissed. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the impugned order and the certified copies of the challan papers submitted by the parties. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the impugned order and the certified copies of the challan papers submitted by the parties. After completion of investigation, police has filed challan against the present petitioner along with Shubhkaran and Vimal Sharma under aforesaid sections . There are allegations of cheating, forgery and criminal conspiracy against the accused persons. I have also perused the statements of the complainant and other persons. The complainant has specifically stated that the vehicle in question was purchased through agreement from Baljinder Singh to whom original R/C holder Shrawan had sold the vehicle. The claim of the petitioner is based on the registration papers of the vehicle in his favour. But at present, as per police report, they are stated to be false. The sale of vehicle by original R/c holder Shrawan in favour of Vikas Sharma, from whom the petitioner has been alleged to have purchased the vehicle, has not been found genuine by the concerned officer. During investigation, the vehicle in question was not recovered from the possession of petitioner, but recovered from open place. The learned Sessions Judge has elaborately dealt with the matter and I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the said order. No interference is required. 8. In the result , this revision is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. The observations made in this order will not come in the way of the trial of the case.Revision dismissed. *******