Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 476 (RAJ)

Dalip Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2013-02-27

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner while challenging the validity of the notice (Annex.5) dated 13.2.2013 passed by the respondents No. 3 - Assistant Police Inspector, Economic Offences Branch, Nagpur (Maharashtra) while exercising powers under Section 91 Cr.P.C. whereby the petitioner has been directed produce vehicle RJ-13-GA-2864 before the respondent No. 3 on 28.2.2013 at 11 AM. 2. It is contended by the petitioner that he has purchased the truck No. RJ-13-GA-2864 from the respondent No. 5, who happens to be registered owner of the vehicle, however, on account of complaint filed by the respondent No. 4, the The Assistant Police Inspector, Economic Offences Branch, Nagpur, the police started investigation and found that the respondent No. 5 has took loan from the respondent No. 4 for buying a truck No. CG-04-J-4473 but has not paid the instalment of the loan and got the vehicle in question registered with the DTO, Sri Ganganagar. The allegation against the respondent No. 5 is that he got the vehicle registered at Sri Ganganagar after producing forged no objection certificate. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has purchased the vehicle in question from the respondent No. 5 after verifying the registration certificate issued by the respondent No. 2 and in the said registration certificate, there was no mention of hypothetication of the vehicle in question with the respondent No. 4 and, therefore, in such circumstances, he cannot be compelled to produce the vehicle before the respondent No. 3. It is also contended by the respondent No. 4 and the investigation is going on in the said complaint and, therefore, without there being any finding by the competent Court regarding the fact of taking loan by the respondent No. 5 from respondent No. 4 for purchasing the vehicle in question. The petitioner cannot be compelled to produce the vehicle in question vide notice Annex.5. It is also contended by the counsel for petitioner that he is a bonafide purchaser and he cannot be made to suffer for the misdeed committed by the respondent No. 5 or for the lapses on the part of the respondent No. 4. 4. The petitioner cannot be compelled to produce the vehicle in question vide notice Annex.5. It is also contended by the counsel for petitioner that he is a bonafide purchaser and he cannot be made to suffer for the misdeed committed by the respondent No. 5 or for the lapses on the part of the respondent No. 4. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that in view of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, there is a presumption in the law that registration certificate once issued is genuine and as the petitioner has purchased the vehicle in question from the respondent No. 5 after relying on the registration certificate issued by the respondent No. 2, he cannot be said to be anywhere in fault. Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to other provisions of the Act of 1988 has also contended that the complete procedure of registration of the vehicle and transfer of the vehicle in the other State has been provided under the Scheme of Act of 1988, however, the respondent No. 3 while overlooking the said provisions issued the notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, the said notice is liable to be quashed and set aside. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for petitioner. 6. From the perusal of notice dated 13.2.2013 (Annex.5), it is clear that in respect of the some criminal complaint lodged against the respondent No. 5, the respondent 3 Assistant Police Inspector, Economic Offences Branch, Nagpur, has issued the notice to the petitioner for producing the vehicle No. RJ-13-GA-2864 under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. Any officer incharge of the police station considers that production of thing is necessary or desirable for the purpose of any investigation, enquiry under the Code of Criminal Procedure then he is entitled to issue summon or notice to the person in whose possession or power, the thing is believed to be, requiring him to produce it at the time and place stated in the notice. From the notice, it is clear that the respondent No. 4 submitted a complaint to the effect that one Dhan Singh S/o Baljinder Singh (respondent No. 5) has obtained the loan from respondent No. 4 for purchasing truck No. CG-04-J-4473, however, without paying any installment, he got the vehicle in question registered at Sri Ganganagar on the basis of a forged NOC. 7. 7. In such circumstances, the respondent No. 3 cannot be said to be at any fault in issuing notice to the petitioner for producing the vehicle in question which is admittedly in power and possession of the petitioner. The contentions raised by the petitioner in the writ petition as well as during the course of arguments, have no force as the petitioner has failed to show any provision of law which prohibits the respondent No. 3 from issuing notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for the purpose of investigation on a criminal complaint. 8. In such circumstances, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the writ petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******