AMAL CHANDRA LAHKAR Vs. BENU SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Amal Chandra Lahkar instituted Criminal Revision No.162/97 praying for quashing proceedings in Complaint case No. CR. 163/97 instituted by the Opposite Party Smti Binu Sarma and for setting aside the order dated 6-3-1997 passed therein by the learned Judicial Magistrate at Tezpur granting custody of the Omni tourist vehicle ASK 2882 to the opposite party.

(2.) In Criminal Revision No. 162 of 1997, the petitioner Amal Chandra Lahkar states that he is the owner of the abovermentioned vehicle. On 6-7-1996 he executed a deed (Annexure-A) of agreement to sell the vehicle to the Opposite party Smti Binu Sarma for a consideration of Rs. 2 Lakhs . The same day the opposite party paid to the petitioner Rs. 60,000/-, and agreed to pay the balance of Rs. 1, 40,000/- in two equal instalments on 10-8-1996 and 31-12-1996. On 6-7-1996 itself the possession of the vehicle was handed over to the opposite party along with its documents. It was agreed that all responsibilities and liabilities would be borne by the opposite party from 7-7-1996 to 31-12-1996, and that on final payment on 31-12-1996 the petitioner would sign the requisite forms of sale and purchase of the vehicle for its transfer in the name of the opposite party. The term/condition No. 8 in the deed (annexure-A) of the agreement to sell, reads as under -

(3.) As against the petitioner taking away the vehicle, the opposite party filed a complaint (Annexure-B) against the petitioner u/S 379 IPC, registered as complaint case No. C.R. 163/97, on 3-2-1997, alleging that she paid Rs. 1,10,000/- to the petitioner and agreed to pay the balance amount by 31-12-1996; but as the vehicle met with an accident on 5-12-1996 and had to be repaired, payment could not be made by 31-12-1996, and the petitioner then took away the vehicle on 18-1-1997. The opposite party disclosed in her complaint (Annexure-B) that she lodged an FIR in Goroimari Police Station in relation to the same offence. The learned Magistrate, therefore, called for a police report as required under Sec. 210 Cr. P.C. As the police report did not disclose that any investigation was in progress, the learned Magistrate ordered issuance of summons to the accused-petitioner and search warrant in respect of the vehicle and ordered to hand over possession thereof to the complainant-opposite party vide order dated 10-2-1997. On 25-2-1997 the accused-petitioner appeared in the Court and filed a petition for giving custody of the vehicle to him. The learned Magistrate rejected his petition by his order dated 6-3-1997 impugned in the instant Criminal Revision No. 162/97.