KENTS FINANCE LTD Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the order dated 23-8-2001 made in Crl.M.P.No. 2845 of 2001 in Crime No. 124 of 2001 on the file of the VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, which was confirmed by the order dated 19-10-2001 made in Crl.R.P.No. 302 of 2001 on the file of the III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

(2.) The petitioner herein is a financier in respect of Bajaj Caliber Vehicle bearing Registration No. AP1ON-4165 and the 2nd respondent herein is the hire-purchase agreement holder in respect of the said vehicle. The petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent, who is the hirer, has not cleared all the instalments pursuant to the hire- purchase agreement: and therefore, for all legal purposes, the petitioner is the legal owner of the said Bajaj Caliber Vehicle bearing Registration No. AP1ON-4165. The said vehicle has been seized in connection with Crime No. 124/2001 of P.S. Osmania University, Hyderabad for the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of PITA Act on 27-6-2001. The petitioner filed an application before the learned VI Metropolitan Magistrate for the interim custody of the vehicle pending disposal of the criminal case in Crime No. 124/2001 under Sections 451 read with 457 Cr.P.C. But, the said application has been dismissed by order dated 23-8-2001 on the ground that there was an allegation in the remand diary stating that the vehicle belongs to A-5 Sreenivas, who is still absconding, and therefore, there are no grounds to release the vehicle in favour of the petitioner. The learned Magistrate stated that according to the registration certificate of the said vehicle, the vehicle stands in the name of one Nageswara Sharma (the 2nd respondent herein) under the finance of the petitioner. Thus, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is a financier and the 2nd respondent is the hirer of the said vehicle. Questioning the said order of the learned Magistrate, the petitioner filed Crl.R.P.No. 302 of 2001 before the learned III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, in which, the 2nd respondent submitted that he has no objection to order for the interim custody of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner. But, the learned III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge dismissed the said revision petition on the ground that no final report has been filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C; and therefore, unless the vehicle is produced before the Court, the vehicle cannot be ordered to be released. Questioning the said order, this criminal petition is filed.

(3.) Pursuant to the issuance of notice before admission, the 2nd respondent appointed a Counsel and submitted that the 2nd respondenthas no objection for release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner, as the instalments under hire-purchase agreement have not been paid by the 2nd respondent.