Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 930 (RAJ)

Bala Devi v. State of Rajasthan

2013-05-08

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal miscellaneous petition under section 482 Cr.PC has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 20.03.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar, District Hanumangarh (for short 'the revisional court' hereinafter) in Cr. Revision Petition No. 06/2011, whereby the learned revisional court has dismissed the revision petition and affirmed the order dated 21.09.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rawatsar (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) in Cr. Case No. 311/2010, whereby the learned trial court dismissed the application filed under section 451 Cr.P.C. 2. Brief facts of the case are that one Sheolal submitted a complaint before the learned trial court on 01.05.2010, while alleging that his father late Munshi Ram purchased a tractor bearing No. RJ31RA- 0545 by taking a loan from National Bank and thereafter on 04.05.2008, gave the said tractor to the respondent No. 2 on contract for a period of one year and for that, the respondent No. 2 was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to his father and had to return the tractor after one year. After lapse of one year, the respondent No. 2 did not return the tractor and in the mean time his father died and thereafter the complainant and other persons approached the respondent No. 2 but he refused to return the tractor and told them that he has already prepared forged documents for purchase of the tractor in question and has already sold it further. 3. The complaint was forwarded by the trial court to the police under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation; and on 04.05.2010, an FIR No. 142/2010 was lodged at Police Station, Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh against the respondent No. 2 for the offences punishable under sections 420, 406, 467 468 and 471 IPC. After thorough investigation, the police filed a negative final report, while concluding that since the matter being of a financial transaction, therefore, is of civil nature and no case for committing the offences punishable under sections 420, 406, 467 468 and 471 IPC is made out against the respondent No. 2. 4. The complainant Sheolal had thereafter preferred a protest petition before the learned trial court, however, during the pendency of the protest petition, the petitioner, being wife of late Munshi Ram, filed an application under section 451 Cr.P.C for custody of the tractor in question. 4. The complainant Sheolal had thereafter preferred a protest petition before the learned trial court, however, during the pendency of the protest petition, the petitioner, being wife of late Munshi Ram, filed an application under section 451 Cr.P.C for custody of the tractor in question. Simultaneously, the respondent No. 2 had also moved an application under section 451 Cr.P.C for the custody of the tractor in question. The learned trial court, after taking into consideration both the applications and hearing the parties, vide order dated 21.09.2010, rejected both the applications. 5. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred a revision before the learned revisional court. The learned revisional court, after hearing the parties, vide order dated 30.03.2011, has dismissed the revision petition preferred by the petitioner and ordered that the tractor in question be handed over to the respondent No. 2 on Supurdaginama. Hence, this criminal miscellaneous petition has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dated 30.03.2011. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned trial court as well as the learned revisional court grossly erred in rejecting the application preferred on behalf of the petitioner under section 451 Cr.P.C for the custody of the tractor in question as the tractor was registered in the name of husband of the petitioner and being wife of the registered owner, she is entitled for the custody of the said tractor. It has further been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that both the learned courts below have not taken into consideration this aspect of the matter and have rejected the application as well as the revision petition filed by the petitioner in the cursory manner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that no revision was preferred on behalf of the respondent No. 2, yet the revisional court has directed to handover the custody of the tractor in question on Supurdaginama to the respondent No. 2. It is submitted that such a direction given by the revisional court is absolutely illegal and without jurisdiction particularly in view of the fact that the respondent No. 2 had not challenged the order dated 21.09.2010, whereby his application for the custody of the tractor in question was rejected by the learned trial court. 7. It is submitted that such a direction given by the revisional court is absolutely illegal and without jurisdiction particularly in view of the fact that the respondent No. 2 had not challenged the order dated 21.09.2010, whereby his application for the custody of the tractor in question was rejected by the learned trial court. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of this Court in Sikander Beg v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., reported in 1993 CRI.L.J.1114 and has claimed that being the wife of the registered owner, she only is entitled for the custody of the tractor in question. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has supported the order dated 30.03.2011 passed by the revisional court and has argued that the respondent No. 2 produced the documentary evidence in support of his claim and prima facie proved that he had purchased the tractor from late Munshi Ram for a consideration of Rs. 1,70,000/-, out of which Rs. 1,00,000/- had already been paid by him and, therefore, the learned revisional court has not committed any illegality in directing to handover the custody of the tractor in question on Supurdaginama to him on his oral request made at the time of hearing of revision petition preferred by the petitioner. 9. This Court has considered the submissions made on behalf of respondents and also perused the impugned orders. 10. The learned trial court had rejected the application of the petitioner while taking into consideration the fact that in the matter of complaint filed by the son of the petitioner, the police, after thorough investigation, came to the conclusion that the matter pertains to financial transaction between late Munshi Ram and respondent No. 2. An agreement to sale of the tractor was executed by Munshi Ram in favour of respondent No. 2 and the police found that there is no evidence of commission of offence under sections 420, 406, 467 468 and 471 IPC available on record. The learned trial court observed that as the protest petition preferred on behalf of the son of the petitioner is pending consideration and, therefore, at this stage, it is not proper to handover the custody of the tractor in question to the petitioner. The learned trial court observed that as the protest petition preferred on behalf of the son of the petitioner is pending consideration and, therefore, at this stage, it is not proper to handover the custody of the tractor in question to the petitioner. The learned trial court further observed that when the document, agreement to sale of the tractor is available on record, it is proper to handover the custody of the tractor in question to the respondent No. 2 on Supurdaginama with certain conditions. 11. This Court is of the opinion that the learned revisional court has not committed any illegality in refusing to handover the custody of the tractor in question to the petitioner and has also not committed any error in ordering for handing over the tractor in question to the respondent No. 2 in view of the existence of agreement to sale of tractor in question executed by Munshi Ram in favour of the respondent No. 2. In the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the directions given by the learned revisional court cannot be said to be unreasonable in any manner. 12. In case of Sikander Beg v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (supra), this Court has refused to give the custody of the vehicle to the person from whom it was recovered because he was not having any documentary proof of sale or agreement to sale of the said vehicle. 13. In the present case, respondent No. 2 is having an agreement to sale executed by Munshi Ram in his favour. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Sikander Beg's case (supra) is not applicable in the present case.In view of the above discussions, this Court finds no merit in this petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.Record of the trial court be sent forthwith.Petition dismissed. *******