RAM CHAND Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No. 2 even though served is absent; hence proceeded against ex parte.

(2.) In this petition order dated 31.8.2004 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, in Case No. 133/4 of 2004/2002 is under challenge whereby the application filed by Respondent No. 3 Baldev Raj Kalra under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was allowed and he was given the custody of vehicle (truck) bearing registration No. HP-38-2588 on certain terms and conditions mentioned in the operative part of that order. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition can be summarized as under:

(3.) Vehicle No. HP-38-2588 was originally owned by Rattan Singh, who was the father of Respondent No. 2. Rattan Singh died and after his death Respondent No. 2 Surjeet Singh naturally became his legal heir and successor. Certain disputes had arisen between the Petitioner Ram Chand and Respondent No. 2 as well as his father Rattan Singh (during his life time) with respect to their liabilities and obligations relating to and arising out of the vehicle in question. The contention of the Petitioner was that Rattan Singh had taken a loan of Rs. 1,80,000/- from the Petitioner for repair of the vehicle in question, Rs. 1 lac at one point of time and Rs. 80,000/- at another point of time and that Rattan Singh had executed an agreement with the Petitioner for return of the amount in question, or in the alternative for sale of the vehicle in favour of the Petitioner for a sum of Rs. 1,90,000/-. This agreement apparently was executed on 16.4.2000 between Rattan Singh deceased and the Petitioner. In this agreement the parties had agreed that if Rattan Singh would fail to handover all the documents of the vehicle in question within two weeks from 16.4.2000, the Petitioner would become the owner of the vehicle. The Petitioner perhaps took the possession of the vehicle and dispute having arisen between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2, FIR was lodged in Police Station, Bharari, being FIR No. 51/2000. It was lodged on 20.10.2000. On this being done, both the Petitioner as well as Respondent No. 2 filed individual, separate applications under Section 457, Code of Criminal Procedure for release of the vehicle. Vide order dated 30.12.2000. passed in Case No. 186/4 of 2000, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghumarwin, ordered the release of the vehicle in favour of the Petitioner. The basis of the order upon which the learned Magistrate held the Petitioner entitled to the release of the vehicle can be called out in the following two paragraphs of his aforesaid judgment, which read thus: