Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 124 (RAJ)

Shafiq Khan v. State of Rajasthan

2018-01-08

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the material on record. 2. By way of this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 the petitioner Shafiq Khan has approached this Court for challenging the order dated 28.9.2016 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act Cases, Udaipur in revision whereby the Revisional Court rejected the petitioner's revision and affirmed the order dated 6.6.2016 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Udaipur directing that custody of the Volkswagen Car bearing registration no. DL-4C-AV-5340 (transferred registration no. RJ-27 CE-9040) shall be handed over to the respondent Pankaj Mehta. 3. The respondent Pankaj Mehta was handed over the car on Supurdaginama by the trial court on the premise that the same was purchased through money extorted from his son Himan Mehta. However, it is an admitted position on record that the car in question stands registered in the name of the present petitioner. It is also not disputed that the petitioner had lawfully purchased the car and the registration thereof has been transferred to his name. The petitioner is not an accused in the criminal case relating to the alleged extortion from the complainant's son. One of the accused in the said case named Sohail Hussain sold the car to the present petitioner. However, admittedly the case does not involve the offence of receiving stolen property. 4. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner it eh only person entitled to custody of the car in question. The confessional statement of the accused Shafiq Khan cannot be used to the petitioner's detriment so as to deprive him of the vehicle lawfully procured by him. The courts below acted with gross arbitrariness and non application of mind while accepting the application filed by the respondent Pankaj Mehta under sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C., 1973 and rejecting that of the present petitioner. 5. In this background, the instant misc. petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned orders dated 6.6.2016 and 28.9.2016 are hereby quashed and set aside. 5. In this background, the instant misc. petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned orders dated 6.6.2016 and 28.9.2016 are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent Pankaj Mehta shall within a period of seven days from the submission of copy of the order in the trial court present the car in question before that Court and the same shall be handed over to the petitioner on his furnishing Supardginama and bonds to that Court's satisfaction.