MANOJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Manoj-petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 7.2.2000 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, whereby two revisions, one filed by Manoj Kumar-petitioner bearing No. 21 dated 4.6.1999/3.6.1999 and the other filed by Bijender Singh, bearing No. 13 dated 27.5.1999 seeking release of truck bearing Registration No. HR-46-3897 on spurdari, taken into possession in FIR No. 44 dated 4.3.1999, were decided.

(2.) A few facts need to be noticed for adjudication of the present petition. Case bearing First Information Report No. 44 date 4.3.1999, under Section 392 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as, ('IPC'), was got registered at Police Station Sadar Rohtak on the report of Ram Phool Hooda, resident of Subhash Takage, Rohtak. It was stated by him that he was the owner of M/s Mahamaya Finance Company. On 20.8.1998, he had financed three trucks bearing registration Nos. HR-46-3897, HR-46-3697 and HR-46-1105 to Bijender Singh-petitioner for a sum of Rs. 2 lac each. In terms of Hire Purchase agreement, said Bijender Singh was to pay the instalments to him. He was informed by Bijender Singh that Manoj, Devinder sons of Azad Singh, Ashok and Harish Kumar, residents of Majra have looted the vehicles in question after stopping them near village Barhminwass and in the process had also caused injuries to the drivers of the trucks. the above mentioned accused had also looted Rs. 10,000/- from the drivers. According to Manoj Kumar-petitioner, his father Azad Singh (now deceased), had purchased truck No. HR-46-3897 which was given by him to Bijender Singh for running it on hire basis. Said Bijender Singh had been making payments to Azad Singh accordingly. Azad Singh subsequently died on 10.2.1996. Bijender Singh, there after had been making payment to Manoj Kumar-petitioner for some time but thereafter he refused to pay the instalment amount to him. Later it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that said Bijender Singh had got the registration of vehicle No. HR-46-3897 belonging to Azad Singh and HR-46-3697 belonging to Ram Phal transferred fraudulently in his name from the Regional Transport Authority, Charkhi Dadri. Said vehicles were shown to have been financed by M/s. Mahamaya Finance Company. FIR No. 21 dated 15.2.1999 concerning truck No. HR-46-3897 was got registered by the petitioner with Police Station Kharkhoda. As the Police Station Kharkhoda had no jurisdiction to investigate the matter, said FIR No. 21 dated 15.2.1999 was converted into FIR No. 79 dated 26.4.1999, under Section 420/467 and 471 IPC. While FIR. No. 23 dated 16.2.1999 had been converted into FIR No. 80 dated 26.4,1999 with Police Station Charkhi Dadri. Manoj Kumar-petitioner filed an application to the Illaqa Magistrate for releasing the truck in question on spurdari to him wherein he had detailed the above mentioned facts. Bijender Singh also moved an application seeking the release of said vehicle on spurdari to him claiming himself to be the owner of the same. The report of the police was obtained by the Illaaqa Magistrate, which stated that it had no objection to the release of the truck in question to its registered owner. After taking into consideration the reports of the police, the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Rohtak rejected the application of both the parties as per orders dated 3/11.5.1999 on the ground that criminal Court cannot determine the ownership of vehicle in question and advised them to approach the civil Court to get their ownership right over the vehicle determined. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the orders so passed, revisions were filed which came to be heard by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak. Vide order dated 7.2.2002 the vehicle was ordered to be released on spurdari to Bijender Singh on the ground that its custody was given to him by Azad Singh, who was the registered owner on hire basis, as per terms of the sapurdaginama detailed in the order. Hence, the present petition by Manoj Kumar-petitioner challenging the legality of the order.

(3.) None had appeared on behalf of the petitioner at the time of arguments. I heard the State counsel at length.