RAMESH LAL ARORA Vs. KAVITA ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admit. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. By the order dated 8.9.1995, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in a complaint filed under Sections 307/498-A/ 406, Indian Penal Code released the car, whose registered owner was Shri Ramesh Arora, to his wife Mrs. Kavita Arora, on her furnishing superdari of Rs. 1,00,000.00 Rupees one lac only) subject to the condition that the car would be produced in the Court as and when required. She was further directed to keep the car in proper and safe custody.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner before me that the car bearing No. DNC-1774 was produced by him and he is the registered owner of this vehicle, which is registered under the Motor Vehicles Act and that this car was taken possession of as unclaimed property under Section 66 of the Delhi Police Act and remained unclaimed property, therefore, could not be handed over to Mrs. Kavita Arora, in the proceedings before the Magistrate under Sections 307/498-A/406, Indian Penal Code. He further submits that the only procedure that could be adopted in cases of property taken possession of under Section 66 of the Delhi Police Act is by dealing with it in accordance with Section 67 thereof. The Magistrate by handing-over the car to his wife has exceeded his jurisdiction. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that this vehicle was purchased out of the fund of istridhan and, therefore, became property claimable by her as istridhan under Section 406, Indian Penal Code. I have asked the Public Prosecutor to show me as to when this car was taken into possession in FIR No. 254/95 under Sections 498-A/406, Indian Penal Code. No document is forthcoming to show that the car at any point of time became case property in FIR No. 254/95. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the matter has to be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the Delhi Police Act. Learned Counsel also points out that under the Motor Vehicles Act, it is mandatory that the vehicle so registered remains in the custody of the registered owner who may at will allow a person with a valid licence to ply the same. But the motor vehicle cannot be handed over on superdari to a person, who is not the registered owner since it would violate the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.

(3.) Having given my careful consideration to the facts before me, I am of the view that the Metropolitan Magistrate erred in handing over the vehicle to Mrs. Kavita Arora, who is not the registered owner of the vehicle and, therefore, I set aside the order dated 8.9.1995 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate.