RADHIKA DEVI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY present revision under section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the Code) order dated 24-2-87 passed by Illrd Additional Sessions Judge Ballia allowing the revision and setting aside the order dated 6-9-86 passed by the Magistrate, is sought to be quashed.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are these. THE opposite party no. 2 has lodged a report at the police station Kotwali Ballia that the husband of the present applicant has taken possession of the vehicle (No. B.R.A. 9448), by playing mischief with him and the same be delivered to him. On this report the police Kotwali obtained the possession of the said vehicle from applicant, but kept it at the police station. THE applicant as a vendee also claimed the said vehicle. THE said report was sent to the Superintendent of Police. A complaint was filed by the opposite party no. 2 on 29-7-85 against the applicant and the same is still pending.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the opposite party no. 2, on the other hand, urged that the order passed by the Magistrate was not interlocutory order hence the revision before the Sessions Judge was maintainable and as the registration of the vehicle was in the name of opposite party no. 2 hence he was entitled to the possession. The reliance was placed on R. K. Jaiswal v. State of U. P., 1984 ACrR 290.