BHARAT SINGH JADAUN Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks quashment of order dated 15th May, 2002, passed by 12th Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhopal, in Criminal Revision No. 165/2002, wherein, he set aside the order dated 3rd May, 2002, passed by C.J.M. Bhopal, who allowed the petitioner's application, moved u/s 457 of the Cr.P.C. and disallowed the similar application, filed on behalf of non-applicant No. 2, seeking interim Supurdgi of Cielo Car bearing No. UP-80/M-7200.

(2.) ON the report lodged by petitioner Bharat Singh at Police Station M.P. Nagar, Bhopal, on 18.4.2000, alleging theft of aforesaid Cielo Car No. UP-80/M-7200, from his possession, which is stated to have been parked in front of Hotel Surendra Vilas, Bhopal, Crime No. 178/2002, is registered as Police Station M.P. Nagar, Bhopal, for an offence punishable u/s 379 of the IPC. Thereafter, on 22.4.2002, Station House Officer, Police Station M.P. Nagar, Bhopal, seized the aforesaid car from a place situated opposite S.R. Motors, B.D.A. Colony, Kohefiza, Bhopal, along with one photocopy of a bill of repairs issued in the name of respondent No. 2. Then this petitioner so also respondent No. 2 filed application u/s 457 of the Cr.P.C, seeking interim custody of the aforesaid car, which were disposed of by C.J.M. Bhopal, by order dt. 3rd May, 2002. Feeling aggrieved by the order of rejection of his Supurdgi application, respondent No. 2 challenged the aforesaid order in Criminal Revision No. 165/2002. While disposing of Criminal Revision No. 165/2002, and setting aside the order of Supurdgi dt. 3rd May, 2002, which was passed in favour of this petitioner by C.J.M. Bhopal, the learned 12th Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhopal, recorded his opinion after objective assessment of evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties, that it would not be just and proper to give the car on Supurdgi to any of the parties. For recording the aforesaid opinion, it is observed by the learned Revisional Court that not only the alleged incident of theft, but even the registeration certificate filed on behalf of this petitioner, are doubtful and the petitioner could not produce any evidence on the fact of purchase of the aforesaid vehicle. It is also appreciated by the learned Judge, who presided the Revisional Court, that respondent No. 2 is running a travelling agency in the same Hotel Surendra Vilas, from where the car is alleged to have been stolen and respondent No. 2 has filed the papers showing the fact of purchase of aforesaid car by him from one Hemant Kumar through Supreme Auto Deal and the payment of its price is made by cheque. It is also noted by the learned Judge of Revisional Court that Hemant Kumar has secured N.O.C. from one Brijesh Kumar, for the transfer of aforesaid car in his name, which is not effected so far.