Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 737 (HP)

Geeta Devi v. State of H. P.

2016-05-10

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The petitioner herein purchased vehicle bearing temporary No. HP-14A-6409 (applied) 2008 model on its standing financed by L&T Finance Branch, Office Mandi. On 24th September, 2008 the petitioner herein constituted respondent No.2 as her Special Power of Attorney for performing on her behalf the hereinafter extracted deeds “Special power of attorney” Know all men by these presents that I Geeta Devi wife of Shri Laxman Dass resident of village Mahan, P.O. Khalanoo Tehsil Sadar District Mandi, H.P. do hereby constitute, nominate and appoint Shri Bhagat Ram son of Shri Chande Ram resident of village and post office Aut Sub Tehsil Aut District Mandi, as true and lawful attorney. Whereas I the executant is owner in possession of vehicle bearing registration No. HP-65-1665 make Tata motors and I have sold my said vehicle to above mentioned attorney Shri Bhagat Ram and I have delivered the said affidavit form No. 29, 30 etc. for the transfer of the said vehicle and I am unable to present before the concerned authority for transfer of thee said vehicle, therefore, I authorized and appoint Shri Bhagat Ram as my attorney in following act, deeds, and things i.e to say:- To present before the concerned RTA/R&LA for transfer of the vehicle HP-65-1665 in his name on my behalf. To sign all the related documents as and when required in the concerned RTA/R&LA regarding the transfer of the said vehicle in his name on my behalf. To deposit token tax, SRT, permit fee, passing fee, insurance etc. in his name on my behalf. To execute all documents regarding the said vehicle as and when required. To produce any documents before the concerned R&LA/RTA regarding the said vehicle in his name on my behalf.” 2. Respondent No. 2 submitted Form No. 29 and Form No. 30 before the competent authority for effectuating transfer to him of ownership/registration of the vehicle aforesaid from the petitioner. Both the forms purportedly bear the signatures of the petitioner herein. An affidavit of 20th December, 2011 purportedly bearing thereon the signatures of the petitioner displaying a portrayal of hers receiving from respondent No.2 full and final sale consideration qua the vehicle carrying No. HP-65-1665 also accompanied the aforesaid forms submitted by the petitioner before the competent authority for effectuating transfer of ownership of the vehicle aforesaid to him from the petitioner. In pursuance thereto the competent authority issued a registration certificate qua the vehicle aforesaid with a depiction therein of respondent No.2 standing entered as its owner in the relevant records maintained by the competent authority. The petitioner herein on acquiring knowledge qua the factum of respondent No.2 forging her signatures on affidavit of 20th December, 2011 besides his forging her signatures on Form No. 29 and 30 whereupon the competent authority effectuated transfer of vehicle aforesaid in favour of respondent No.2, proceeded to lodge an F.I.R. against respondent No.2. In sequel, to the petitioner herein lodging an F.I.R. embodying the aforesaid factum of respondent No.2 by fabricating documents fraudulently obtaining from the competent authority registration of vehicle bearing No. HP-65-1665 besides his securing an entry in the apposite record maintained by the competent authority reflective of his standing recorded therein as its owner constrained the police agency concerned to impound the said vehicle. On the vehicle aforesaid standing impounded by the police agency concerned prodded the respondent No.2 to institute an application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, wherein he staked a relief of bus No. HP-65-1665 being ordered to be released in his favour, on the anvil of he being its registered owner. Given the imminent upsurgings from the allegations constituted in the F.I.R. lodged against respondent No. 2 by the petitioner of his securing by fabricating documents registration from the competent authority of vehicle No. HP-65-1665 in his name, it was incumbent upon the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to render an adjudication on the apposite application preferred before him by respondent No.2, only on the FSL concerned purveying to it its apposite opinion qua the allegations constituted in the F.I.R lodged by the petitioner against respondent No.2 standing ridden with falsity. However, even when the FSL concerned had not rendered its opinion qua the factum of the aforesaid documents purportedly fabricated by respondent No.2 whereupon he purportedly obtained a fraudulent transfer from the competent authority of vehicle No. HP-65-1665 from the competent authority carrying or not carrying the signatures of the petitioner whereas in the event of the FSL concerned purveying an opinion to the Magistrate concerned of the disputed signatures of the petitioner existing on the aforestated documents on their comparison with her admitted signatures rather belonging to her would have rendered/foisted tenability to its impugned rendition contrarily when it in its absence proceeded to order for the release of the vehicle in favour of respondent No.2 vitiates its rendition with the vice of its standing rendered in a poste haste manner without application of mind qua the prime factum aforesaid. Be that as it may, even the reasons as stand ascribed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to order for the release of the vehicle in favour of respondent No.2 are connotative of his palpably clothing his rendition with a mantle of legality, on the score of portrayals occurring in the Special Power of Attorney executed by the petitioner in favour of respondent No.2 qua bus bearing No. HP- 65-1665 whereunder an empowerment stood conferred upon respondent NO.2 for presenting the vehicle aforesaid before the RTA/R&LA concerned for effecting its transfer in his name on her behalf. The mere occurrence of the aforesaid phraseology in the Special Power of Attorney executed on 24th September, 2008 carrying any semblance of its fastening any right in respondent No.2 to thereunder in its garb effectuate transfer of vehicle HP-65-1665 in his name would detract from the substratum of the nomenclature of the document wherein the aforesaid recital exists. Given the factum of affidavit of 24th September, 2008 standing christened besides nomenclatured as a Special Power of Attorney whereunder respondent No.2 stood constituted as the attorney holder of the excutant, the recital occurring at Clause No.1 therein though portraying an authorization standing bestowed upon the attorney holder to transfer vehicle No. HP-65-1665 in his name on behalf of the principal, warrants its standing read in conjuction with the prime factum of its occurring in a document which stands christened as a Special Power of Attorney. As a corollary, the import of any occurrence of the aforesaid recital in the Special Power of Attorney could not either stand enlarged or extended to take within its ambit of respondent No.2 hence standing authorized to avail of its benefit in the manner he has contrived to do besides when he stood constituted therein as the attorney holder of the principal he was debarred to in its garb obtain transfer of vehicle from the competent authority concerned for himself, though he stood empowered only to facilitate its transfer in favour of a person other than himself. Since in its garb it palpably appears of the attorney holder obtaining transfer in his name of vehicle bearing No. HP-65-1665 from the competent authority concerned rendered the effectuation of transfer of vehicle aforesaid in his favour to efface the salutary object of his standing constituted in the apposite document as an attorney holder of the principal/executant in which capacity he stood precluded to obtain transfer of vehicle aforesaid in his favour from the competent authority. As a corollary when he stood forbidden to arrogate to himself a role other than that of an attorney holder of the principal/executant whereas his by extending the scope of the apposite bestowment upon him under the apposite document he has hence belittled its worth in its entirety rendering any act on his part to beyond the scope of the bestowment conferred thereunder upon him to be legally unwarranted. Consequently, any fastening of ownership by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on respondent No.2 on anvil of Special Power of Attorney of 24.9.2008 holds no tenacity. 3. Consequently, any fastening of ownership by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on respondent No.2 on anvil of Special Power of Attorney of 24.9.2008 holds no tenacity. 3. Be that as it may, with specific allegations standing constituted in the F.I.R lodged by the petitioner herein against respondent No.2, of form No. 29 and 30 besides her affidavit standing fabricated by respondent No.2 whereupon the latter proceeded to fraudulently obtain from the competent authority transfer of the apposite vehicle from the petitioner to himself predominantly with pointed significance warranting ascription by this Court to the factum of the purportedly fabricated affidavit of the petitioner of 20th December, 2011 holding a bearing upon besides a telling effect upon the tenacity carried by the Special Power of Attorney executed by the petitioner precedingly thereto whereunder she constituted respondent No.2 to be her Special Power of Attorney inasmuch as with the execution of the purportedly fraudulent documents by the petitioner herein occurring subsequent to the execution of Special Power of Attorney by the petitioner whereunder she constituted respondent No.2 as her attorney holder inasmuch as of even the respondent No.2 despite his purportedly forging thereon the signatures of the petitioner his acquiescing to the factum of the precedingly executed Special Power of Attorney with an apposite afore referred recital whereupon an untenable leverage stood fastened by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for rendering a firm conclusion of hence the petitioner divesting herself of ownership qua the bus thereat holding no leverage rather the effect if any of the said recital constituted in the Special Power of Attorney standing hence obliterated, constraining this Court to conclude of Clause No.1 of the Special Power of Attorney holding no formidability for sustaining any inference of the petitioner divesting herself of ownership of the bus in favour of the respondent No.2. Consequently, any construction placed upon it by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate of clause No.1 qua its standing amenable to an inference of the petitioner divesting herself of ownership qua the vehicle in favour of respondent No.2 being a sequel of gross misappreciation of its implication and its import especially when it occurs in a document nomenclatured as Special Power of Attorney significance whereof of its standing so christened cannot either stand whittled down or erased in the manner as done by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Accordingly, the petition is accepted. Accordingly, the petition is accepted. The impugned order is quashed and set-aside. However, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is directed to ensure that vehicle No. HP-65-1665 possession whereof extantly is held by respondent No.2 is retrieved from him within two weeks and thereupon ensure its standing handed over to the petitioner herein within one week thereafter. It is clarified that as and when the report of the FSL concerned is received it shall be open for the respondent No.2 to thereupon in case it leans in his favour move an appropriate application before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned for seeking a claim for the apposite vehicle being ordered to be released in his favour. Obviously, the aforesaid application shall be decided in accordance with law. However, any observation made hereinabove shall have no bearings on the merits of the case.