SANDIP AMUBHAI MIYATRA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocate Mr.Pratik Jasani on behalf of the applicant, learned APP Ms.Mehta for the respondent State and learned Advocate Ms.Sneha Joshi for the respondent No.2.

(2.) By way of this application, the applicant prays for quashing of an order passed dtd. 25/9/2013 by the learned 7 th Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot in Criminal Revision Application No.95 of 2012 preferred by the present applicant.

(3.) Facts in brief leading to filing of the present application are that an FIR bearing C. R. No.I-165 of 2012 has been lodged with "A" Division Police Station, Rajkot by the present respondent No.2 against three persons namely; (1) Kumar Vinubhai Hasalia, (2) Dipesh Hareshbhai Hemani and (3) M/s.Koncept Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi through its Proprietor, for the offences punishable under Ss. 406 , 420 , and 114 of IPC. The allegation in the FIR by the respondent No.2 being that since he was interested in purchasing a vehicle being a Car being Mahindra XUV 500 Model, therefore, he had approached accused No.1 and 2 named herein above, who had informed him that the car would cost approximately Rs.13,29,500.00. The respondent No.2 was also directed by the said accused to pay the amount directly to respondent No.3 i.e. M/s.Koncept Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.. The respondent No.2 had vide RTGS dtd. 27/4/2012 transferred the amount of Rs.13,29,500.00 in favour of M/s.Koncept Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.. The allegation of the respondent No.2 - complainant being that thereafter while he had been promised the vehicle, after some time he found that the original accused No.1 and 2 had left the city and whereas upon inquiry with M/s.Koncept Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., it was informed to the respondent No.2 that the possession of the vehicle in question was given to the present applicant. The respondent No.2 inter alia alleges that as the present applicant had been fraudulently given possession of the vehicle for which payment was made by respondent No.2, the impugned FIR came to be preferred. It appears that after the FIR had been preferred by the respondent No.2 herein, the vehicle had been seized by the Investigating Officer and whereas the applicant as well as the respondent No.2 had both moved applications for release of the vehicle in question. The learned 11 th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot vide an order dtd. 7/8/2012 had been pleased to release the vehicle in favour of the applicant herein, more particularly directing the applicant to comply with certain conditions as mentioned in the order in question. It appears that both the applicant and respondent No.2 herein had challenged the said order by preferring a Revision Application No.95/2012, relatable to the present applicant, and Revision Application No.91/2012, relatable to the respondent No.2. It appears that vide an order dtd. 10/9/2012, the Revisional Court being the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot had directed to release the vehicle in favour of the present respondent No.2 and whereas the applicant was directed to pay the remaining amount of loan. The said order had been challenged by the present applicant before this Court by preferring Special Criminal Application No.2696 of 2012 and whereas vide an order dtd. 17/4/2003 this Court (Coram: Mr. Justice R. M. Chhaya) had been pleased to dispose of the said application by quashing and setting aside the orders passed by the learned Revisional Court and the learned Coordinate Bench had been pleased not to make any observation own merits, more particularly directing the learned Revisional Court to decide the Revision Applications on their own merits. It appears that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the Revisional Court had once again heard the Revision Applications preferred by the applicant as well as the respondent No.2 and whereas vide order dtd. 25/9/2013, the Revisional Court being the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot had directed the possession of the vehicle to be handed over to the respondent No.2 herein, whereas the applicant was imposed with the liability of paying the remainder of loan amount which had been availed by him. Certain other conditions had also been imposed vide the said order. It is this order that has been impugned by the present applicant by filing this application before this Court.