DALIP KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner while challenging the validity of the notice (Annex.5) dt. 13.02.2013 passed by the respondents No. 3 -Assistant Police Inspector, Economic Offences Branch/Nagpur (Maharashtra) while exercising powers under Sec. 91 Cr.P.C. whereby the petitioner has been directed produce vehicle RJ -13 -GA -2864 before the respondent No. 3 on 28.02.2013 at 11 AM. It is contended by the petitioner that he has purchased the Truck No. RJ -13 -GA -2864 from the respondent No. 5, who happens to be registered owner of the vehicle, however, on account of complaint filed by the respondent No. 4, the The Assistant Police Inspector, Economic Offences Branch, Nagpur, the police started investigation and found that the respondent No. 5 has took loan from the respondent No. 4 for buying a Truck No. CG -04 -J -4473 but has not paid the installments of the loan and got the vehicle in question registered with the DTO, Sri Ganganagar. The allegation against the respondent No. 5 is that he got the vehicle registered at Sri Ganganagar after producing forged no objection certificate.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has purchased the vehicle in question from the respondent No. 5 after verifying the registration certificate issued by the respondent No. 2 and in the said registration certificate, there was no mention of hypothetication of the vehicle in question with the respondent No. 4 and, therefore, in such circumstances, he cannot be compelled to produce the vehicle before the respondent No. 3. It is also contended by the respondent No. 4 and the investigation is going on in the said complaint and, therefore, without there being any finding by the competent Court regarding the fact of taking loan by the respondent No. 5 from respondent No. 4 for purchasing the vehicle in question. The petitioner cannot be compelled to produce the vehicle in question vide notice Annex.5. It is also contended by the counsel for petitioner that he is a bonafide purchaser and he cannot be made to suffer for the misdeed committed by the respondent No. 5 pr for the lapses on the part of the respondent No. 4.

(3.) I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for petitioner.