Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 400 (RAJ)

Jeewan Mal s/o Narainram v. State of Rajasthan

2017-02-03

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2017
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Mr. Vijay Bishnoi, J. 1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 18.6.2016 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Deedwana, District Nagour (hereinafter referred to as the revisional court), where the Criminal Revision Petition No.5/2014 filed on behalf of the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. The said criminal revision petition was filed by the petitioner against the order dated 4.10.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ladnu (hereinafter referred to as the trial court) in FR No.68/2013, arising out of FIR No.54/2012 of Police Station Jaswantgarh, District Nagour, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 451/457 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for releasing the tractor No. RJ 21 3R 0966 (hereinafter to be referred as vehicle in question) has been dismissed. 3. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR No.54/2012 was lodged at the Police Station Jaswantgarh, District Nagaur and during the course of investigation, the police has seized the vehicle in question. However, after thorough investigation the police has filed a negative final report in the matter while concluding that the dispute between the complaint and the persons named in the FIR as accused is purely of civil nature. 4. At this stage, the petitioner has moved an application under Section 451/457 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for releasing the vehicle in question to him. The trial court has found that the vehicle in question is registered in the name of five persons namely Nathu Ram, Bhanwara Ram, Bhagwan Ram, Prabhu Ram and the respondent No.2 Jamna Devi and therefore notices were issued to them. On behalf of Nathu Ram, Bhanwara Ram and Bhagwan Ram, an application was moved before the trial court, wherein, it is stated that they have no objection if the vehicle in question is released in favour of the petitioner. However, none has appeared on behalf of Prabhu Ram as it was stated before the trial court that he has died. On behalf of the respondent No.2 Jamna Devi, an application under Section 451/457 was preferred with a prayer for releasing the vehicle in question in her favour. 5. However, none has appeared on behalf of Prabhu Ram as it was stated before the trial court that he has died. On behalf of the respondent No.2 Jamna Devi, an application under Section 451/457 was preferred with a prayer for releasing the vehicle in question in her favour. 5. The trial court after hearing the petitioner and the respondent No.2 has rejected both the applications while observing that there are two claimants for the vehicle in question, therefore, at this stage, it cannot be decided that who is the right owner of the vehicle in question and it can only be decided by the civil court. 6. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner has preferred a criminal revision petition before the revisional court and the respondent No.2 was also impleaded as party respondent in that criminal revision petition, wherein, the respondent No.2 has filed an application that she has no objection if the vehicle in question is released in favour of the petitioner. However, the revisional court has dismissed the revision petition while observing that even if the respondent No.2 is not objecting to the release of the vehicle in question in favour of the petitioner, then also, the order of the trial court cannot be said to be illegal in any manner. 7. Assailing the validity of the orders passed by the courts below, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when all the registered owners of the vehicle in question have no objection if the same is released in favour of the petitioner, then, the revisional court has illegally passed the impugned order dated 18.6.2016. 8. Learned counsel Mr. Sheetal Kumbhat, who is appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 has submitted that the respondent No.2 has no objection, if the vehicle in question is released in favour of the petitioner. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. 10. It is not in dispute that the vehicle in question was seized by the police in connection with a criminal case lodged at the Police Station Jaswantgarh, District Nagaur. In the said case, the police has already filed a negative final report while concluding that the dispute between the complainant and the persons named as accused in the FIR is purely of civil nature. In the said case, the police has already filed a negative final report while concluding that the dispute between the complainant and the persons named as accused in the FIR is purely of civil nature. Initially, there was two claimants of the vehicle in question i.e. the petitioner and the respondent No.2, however, before the revisional court, the respondent No.2 has submitted her no objection and has specifically stated that the vehicle in question be released in favour of the petitioner. The vehicle in question is lying in the police station since 2013 and there is only one claimant of it i.e. the petitioner. 11. In such circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the trial court to release the vehicle in question to the petitioner. 12. Hence, this criminal misc. petition is allowed. The order dated 4.10.2013 passed by the trial court as well as the order dated 18.6.2016 passed by the revisional court are hereby quashed and set aside. The trial court is directed to release the vehicle in question to the petitioner forthwith.