S PALANISWAMI Vs. ARUNAGIRINATHAN AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who claims to be entitled to the return of lorry PYX 5411, sold to him by the second respondent herein, which had originally been seized from the first respondent and which by order of this Court had been directed to be returned to the second respondent and had been so returned, invokes, the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482, Crl. P.C. to direct an enquiry to be held, to ascertain, as to who is entitled to possession of the above vehicle, in the face of the overwhelming documentary proof which had been deliberately suppressed, on the earlier occasion.

(2.) The admitted facts are:--The vehicle originally belonged to one Tamilarasi of Pondicherry. The second respondent purchased the same from the said Tamilarasi. Thereafter, on 9.1.1984, he entered into an agreement of sale with the first respondent by which the first respondent agreed to purchase the vehicle for Rs. 1,25,750, out of which a sum of Rs. 22,000 was paid as advance on the date of the agreement and the possession of the vehicle was handed over to the first respondent. The unpaid purchase money, was agreed to be paid in two equal instalments, one on 20.1.1984 and the other on 25.1.1984. Consequent upon the above agreement, the first respondent entered into a hire purchase agreement for raising funds. The first respondent was plying the vehicle. Thereafter, it is the case of the first respondent that, when he, volunteered to pay the future instalments, the second respondent refused. To accept the same and demanded higher price. Mediation took place and, while the parties were trying to settle their disputes, the second respondent gave a complaint to the Salem Town Police, alleging that the first respondent had cheated him and had taken delivery of the lorry. On 12.2.1984 the above complaint was registered as Crl. No. 229/122/84 against the first respondent for an offence under Section 420, I.P.C. On 13.2.1984, during investigation, the police seized the lorry from the possession of the first respondent, while the same was in the workshop at Kalingarayan palayam. Lorry was produced before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem. The second respondent filed on application under Section 451, Crl.P.C. before the above Court, for interim custody of the vehicle pending investigation into the case and the Court ordered that the vehicle be returned to the second respondent. The vehicle was handed over to the second respondent. The registration certificate for the vehicle, which had also been produced by the first respondent into the Court, was kept in the Court. After investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against the first respondent for an offence under Section 420, I.P.C, which was taken on file by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem as C.C. No. 158 of 1984. The first respondent invoking the inherent powers of this Court, filed Crl. M.P. No. 6188 of 1984 to quash the above case and this Court quashed the proceedings in C.C. No. 158 of 1984 on the ground that the matter was purely of a civil nature and no criminal offence was made out. The second respondent filed Crl. M.P. No. 215 of 1985 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate for handing over the registration certificate that was kept in the court to him for the purpose of paying the tax for the vehicle and the Chief Judicial Magistrate directed the registration certificate to be handed over to the second respondent to enable him to pay the tax. After the proceedings were quashed by this Court the first respondent filed Crl.M.P. No. 4462 of 1985 before this Court, for return of the above vehicle to him on the ground that, since the criminal proceedings had been quashed and the vehicle had initially been seized from him, the same should be handed over to him. This Court on 16.9.1985 ordered return of the vehicle to the first respondent. On 2.6.1986 the above vehicle, while it was at the check post in Bannari, was seized by the Salem Police and on 8.6.1986 was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem. On 9.6.1986 the petitioner filed Crl.M.P. No. 550 of 1986 before the above court for return of the vehicle to him on the ground that he had purchased the vehicle from the second respondent on 16.4.1985 pursuant to an agreement of sale with the second respondent that on the same day the vehicle had been handed over to him and he had been in possession of the vehicle, that on 15.12.1985 he had got the registration certificate transferred to his name and that, therefore, he being a bonafide purchaser for value, is entitled to the possession of the vehicle. Crl.M.P. No. 550 of 1986 was dismissed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem, and the vehicle was ordered to be returned to the first respondent. Aggrieved with the above order, the petitioner now invokes the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482, Crl.P.C. for an enquiry into the question as to who is entitled to the possession of the vehicle.

(3.) Thiru V. Gopinathan, learned counsel for the petitioner, put forward the following contentions: