SURESH KUMAR SINGH Vs. RAM BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the basis of the F.I.R., a charge -sheet was submitted on 31.12.90 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rewa for committing an offence punishable u/s. 420/109 IPC against Suresh Kumar Singh, Shanker Singh, Udairaj Singh and Sagar Singh. A case was registered as Case No. 324/90 (State v. Suresh Kumar Singh and 3 others). On 12.4.91, the learned Magistrate passed an order refusing to grant the custody of the jeep No. MIA 132 in favour of Shamsher Singh, Udairaj Singh and Sagar Singh vide order dated 12.4.91. Aggrieved from this order, a revision (Cr. Rev. No. 61/91) was preferred and the same was decided by learned Second Addl. Sessions Judge Rewa vide his order dated 14.3.92 wherein he, while allowing the revision, passed an order for giving the custody of the jeep No. MIA 132 in favour of Udayraj Singh on his furnishing a security to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/ -. Before this order could be implemented, Smt. Rambai (respondent herein) who had lodged the FIR on the basis whereof, the criminal proceedings in Cr. Case No. 324/91 were set in motion, filed a civil suit being C.S. No. 2 -A/92. She also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC which was disposed of by District Judge Rewa vide his order dated 23.4.92 whereby the appellants were restraining from receiving the custody of the jeep from the concerned Court. Besides, the learned District Judge also directed for giving the custody of the jeep on Supurdgi from the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Rewa and the amount for the Supurdgama was to be fixed by the Court of JMFC Rewa. The present appeal is directed against the aforesaid order dated 23.4.92.

(2.) THE cause list is revised. The counsel for the appellants is present. Counsel for the respondent is not present. On the last occasion also, the counsel for the respondent was not present and since the controversy involved was important one, this Court on 24.1.95 passed the following order, pointing out to the learned Dy. Advocate General Shri R.K. Thakur to assist the Court as amicus curiae. The case is taken up today but none from the respondent's side has appeared.

(3.) THE facts in the present case have only a peripheral relevance.