DHAN SINGH BHATI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT miscellaneous petition impugns the order dated October 25, 1997 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 Ajmer, whereby the learned court below observed that the order dated 6th May, 1997 of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ajmer passed under Section 457 Cr.P.C. was not an interlocutory order and revision petition against the said order was maintainable. In this misc. petition the petitioner Dhan Singh Bhati has prayed that order passed under Section 457 Cr.P.C. be declared as interlocutory order.

(2.) BRIEF resume of the facts is that on Feb. 7, 1997 an FIR was lodged by the non-petitioner No. 2 Shri Tankesh Bhati that on Feb. 7, 1997 at about 8.00 p.m. the petitioner Dhan Singh along with other persons came to his house and forced him to hand over the key of Maruti Zen GJ 7H 2753. Thereafter took away his car. Case under Section 384 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. After completion of the investigation the police submitted final report and has also recommended the enquiry proceedings under Section 182 Cr.P.C. against the informant. Thereafter the petitioner moved an application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. seeking custody of car. The learned Magistrate vide order dated Feb. 19, 1997 directed that the custody of car be delivered to the petitioner. Thereafter another application under section 457 Cr.P.C. was moved by the non-petitioner No. 2 Shri Tankesh Bhati to the effect that order dated Feb. 19, 1997 was passed without hearing him and the petitioner did not place the correct facts before the Court, therefore the order be recalled. The learned Magistrate dismissed the said application vide order dated May 6, 1997. Thereafter the non-petitioner No. 2 Tankesh Bhati filed revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Ajmer. The petitioner raised the preliminary objection in respect of maintainability of revision petition. The learned revisional court overruled the preliminary objection and rejected the application vide order dated Oct. 25, 1997 which has been assailed in this miscellaneous petition.

(3.) MR . Ravi Kasliwal canvassed that order passed under section 457 Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate releasing the vehicle was an interlocutory order and no revision against the said order was maintainable. He placed reliance on Liyakat Hussain v. Rajendra and others, 1996(2) Crimes 549, wherein it was held that order passed under section 451 read with Section 457 Cr.P.C. was an interlocutory order.