HARIKISHAN Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 3.11.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad in Cr. Revision No. 144/2010 whereby the petition filed by the petitioner under section 457 of Cr.P.C. for Supurdginama of disputed tractor was dismissed

(2.) THE facts,, in short, giving rise to this petition are that on 14.4.2009, petitioner purchased a tractor bearing engine No. 3 A20684H 08 and Chasis No. 18113H08 after paying a sum of Rs. 5,60,000/- to Dharmendra Rajpoot, proprietor of Vanshika Abhikaran, who issued the receipt and delivery chalan of the aforesaid tractor (Annexure P-1 and P-2). It is further alleged that the aforesaid cost included regisration charges as well as insurance. Dharmendra Rajpoot has not issued sale letter in favour of the petitioner. It is further alleged that on 11.3.2010, petitioner made a complaint (P-3) to Supdt. of Police against Dharmendra Rajpoot. It is further alleged that petitioner sent the aforesaid tractor for addition of some equipments through one Mahendra Patel Narmada Udyog, the shop of Manohar Lodhi at Vidisha on 9.3.2010 and same was stationed in front of Narmada Udyog. It is further alleged that Dharmendra Rajpoot made a false report in police station Vidisha where offence under section 39/192,130(3)/ 170 of Motor Vehicles Act was registered and case was filed before the CJM, Vidisha. Dharmendra Rajpoot admitted his guilt and took the disputed tractor in his possession. It is further alleged that Dharmendra Rajpoot, proprietor of Vanshika Abhikaran, Piparia, sold the same tractor to respondent No. 2. When petitioner came to know about this fact, he reported the matter to P.S. AJK, where case was registered as per crime No. 1512010 vide Crime No. 408, 420, 467, 294, 506-B of IPC and section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against Dharmendra Rajpoot.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that learned trial Court Committed illegality by overlooking the fact that Cr. No. 15/2010 registered i. gainst respondent No. 2, who is not bonafide purchaser of tractor, due to Which petitioner suffered great hardship because he has paid a sum of Rs. 4,60,000/- to Vanshika Abhikaran. He has further submitted that there is grave miscarriage of justice, hence has prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessons Judge and has prayed for to direct the release of disputed tractor on his supurdginama.