ANIL KUMAR KAKKAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the impugned order dated 3rd June 1988 passed by Shri N.K. Sharma, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, directing that the Maruti Car No. DDD-119 in question which is the case property of the case FIR No. 14 of 1988 of P.S. Subzi Mandi, Delhi, be: handed over to Miss Kitty Mehta, complainant, on sapurdari on her finishing a bond in the sum of Rs. 80,000.00 pending the decision of the case. Miss Kitty Mehta had purchased the vehicle in question from one M/s Agnail Motors, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi, against her father's booking allotment after the later's death, being his nominee. She lodged a report with the said police station alleging that on 18-10-1987 Seema, elder sister of the complainant Kitty Mehta, accompanied by Anil Kakkar, accused-petitioner went to see a film at Palace Cinema Delhi, Seema went to purchase cinema tickets leaving Anil Kakkar sitting in the car parked in front of the cinema hall. When Seema returned there she found Anil Kakkar missing from the place along with the car. The family members of Anil Kakkar were contracted by the mother of the complainant. They assured the complainant party that they will persuade Anil Kakkar to return the car. Anil Kakkar, however did not return the car on which the matter was reported to the police by the complainant on 23-10-1987. It was alleged that Anil Kakkar had forged some documents and got the Maruti Car transferred in his name on the basis of those documents. Both the complainant and the accused had moved applications before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for handing over the car to them on sapurdari pending the decision of the case. The case is yet at the investigation stage and the challan has not as yet been filed in the court. The accused-petitioner produced registration book relating to the vehicle in question according to which the car was registered in the name of the petitioner. The learned Magistrate compared the purported signatures of Miss Kitty Mehta on the photo copy of alleged "sale letter" dated 4-10-87 with her signatures on the receipt dated 3-10-1987. The learned Magistrate was of the view that both these signatures differed. He took the view that these documents were forged documents and under these circumstances be directed the vehicle to be handed over to the complainant Kitty Mehta and rejected the application of the accused-petitioner.

(2.) A preliminary objection was raised by Mr. Luthra, learned counsel for the respondent that the impugned order is an interlocutory order and as such no revision lay against the impugned order under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, la support of his contention he referred to a decision of this Court in the case Smt. Anisa Begum v. Masoom All and another, 1986 Cri. LJ. 503, and a decision of the Kerala High Court in Joshy v. The State, Cr. L J. 263. J.D. Jain, J , a then learned Judge of this court, in the case of Anisa Begum, after consideration of a number of judgments on the point held that an order under Section 451 Criminal Procedure Code does not decide anything finally. It is made during the progress of the inquiry or trial for a specific purpose i.e. for interim custody of the case property as produced before the court. In passing an order under Section 451 Criminal Procedure Code the court forms a prima facie opinion as to the person entitled to the possession of the case property pending decision of the case, only to facilitate proper exercise of discretion as to whom the case properly should be entrusted pending trial of the case. I find myself in agreement with the view as taken in the said case. It was submitted by Mr. Alok Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner that in case it is held that the impugned order as an interlocutory order, the court should exercise its inherent power under Section 482 of the Cod", of Criminal Procedure and should set aside the impugned order which, according to him, is patently bad, to do justice to the case. In the case of Anisa Begum the learned judge bad considered the question as to whether resort to inherent powers under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code can be made in a case covered by Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was observed that the exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code should not be restored to if there is a specific provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party and it should not be exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Code. It is also well settled that the power under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code being extraordinary in its very nature, has to be exercised sparingly if the ends of justice so require. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that inherent power of the court under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code is called for to be invoked for interfering with the impugned order. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner is directed to hand over the car in question to the respondent Miss Kitty Mehta. The petitioner undertakes to deliver the car in question to the respondent on Monday the 24th April, 1989 at 2 P.M. at Tis Hazari Courts and both the parties shall then report about the delivery of the vehicle by the petitioner to the respondent to the learned Magistrate.