SURINDER LAL OHARI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Jagroop Singh, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh purporting to exercise powers under Section 102 Code of Criminal Procedure, passed an order dated August 9, 1984, in relation to Premier Padmini car. No. CHC 9058 placing it in the custody of Raj Paul Gulati respondent on his executing a superdaginama in terms thereof. Surinder Lal Ohri, the petitioner herein, being aggrieved against that order has invoked the inherent, powers of this Court under section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, terming the order of learned Magistrate to be without jurisdiction.

(2.) THE dispute between the parties arose in this manner. Gulati was a non-resident Indian in the years 1981-82. He had opened a non-resident external account with the Indian Overseas Bank, Section 7, Chandigarh. Deposit in the said account could be made by Gulati in terms of foreign exchange and withdrawals therefrom could be had in terms of Indian money. It appears that he sent cheque No. 589892 on January 16, 1982, for a sum of Rs. 72,000/- to Ohri drawn on his aforesaid account. Ohri opened his own account and deposited the said cheque for credit therein on January 29, 1982. The same day he withdrew therefrom a sum of Rs. 71,942.98 by means of a cheque and despatched it to the Premier Padmini Automobiles, Bombay for purchase of a Premier Padmini car against foreign exchange. The car was released in the name of Gulati and was registered as such, but its delivery was taken over by Ohri under his signatures on April 19, 1982. As alleged by Ohri car throughout remained with him till August 2, 1984, when the Chandigarh police took it into possession. On that day, the Chandigarh police had before them two cross complaints of Gulati and Ohri laying claim to the car. Whereas Gulati's case was that he was a registered owner of the car and the car belonged to him, the case of Ohri was that he was the rightful possessor of the car, for, it was in pledge with him for the return of Rs. 72,000/-, which he had advanced in terms of Indian money to the attorney of Gulati for being spent on the construction of a house at Panchkula belonging to the wife of Gulati. On these counter claims the police was tentatively of the view that there was likelihood of breach of peace between the parties, for Gulati would try to have the car at any costs and Ohri would try to dispose it of despite the registered owner being Gulati. In these circumstances, the car was taken possession of. The police then vide Daily Dairy Report No. 43 dated August 2, 1984, arrived at the conclusion: (i) both the parties should approach the Court and obtain orders with regard to the car, (ii) there was no likelihood of peace despite heat generated between the parties, and (iii) no cognizable offence seemed to have been committed.

(3.) THE learned Magistrate required of Ohri to produce any document in support of his claim. No document was produced before the learned Magistrate. Therefore, in the that situation he opted in favour of releasing the car to Gulati, the registered owner. And to allay the fears of Ohri that Gulati would sell or dispose of the same and thus security for repayment of Rs. 72,000/- given as loan would stand washed off, the Court observed as follows:-