SUKHVINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant petition has been preferred by petitioner against dismissal of his Revision Petition vide order dated 13.3.2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, in Cr.Revision No. 11 of 2018, whereby rejection of his application filed under Section 457 Cr.P.C. for release of Gypsy vehicle No.HP-53A-8153 along with its key and documents by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu vide order dated 15.11.2018, has been affirmed.

(2.) On perusal of record and considering the submissions of learned counsel for parties, undisputed facts, which emerged on surface, are that petitioner Sukhvinder Singh has been registered as owner of Gypsy vehicle No.HP-53A-8153 in the record of Registering and Licensing Authority, Baijnath and this vehicle has also been insured by him. Further that respondent No.3 has lodged an FIR No. 124 of 2017, under Section 420 IPC, against petitioner alleging therein that he was dealing in sale and purchase of second hand vehicles and petitioner was working with him on commission basis and respondent No.3 had purchased two vehicles bearing Nos. HP-01-K-2768 (Maruti Swift) and PB-08-BZ-5253 (Maruti Gypsy) from Hi Tech Satluj Motor and one Indever Mehta, respectively and Gypsy was purchased for a total consideration of Rs.55,000/- through sale and purchase agreement and thereafter, as the said vehicle, being accidental one, was got repaired through petitioner at Amritsar and for that purpose an advance of Rs.5000/- was also paid by respondent No.3 to petitioner, but thereafter, petitioner, after forging documents, had transferred the ownership of Gypsy in his own name fraudulently in collusion with registered owner namely Shyam Kumar Sharma, taking advantage of the fact that registration certificate was in the name of Shyam Kumar Sharma, whereas the vehicle was purchased by respondent No.3 from Indever Mehta. It is claimed that Shyam Kumar Sharma had sold the vehicle to one Rajvansh Kaur from whom one Devender Kumar resident of Hamirpur had purchased the same and thereafter it was sold by the said Devender Kumar to Indever Mehta, who sold it to respondent No.3.

(3.) It is also claimed by respondent No.3 that petitioner had also put his signatures as a witness on the sale purchase agreement between Indever Mehta and respondent No.3.