Harikishan vs State of M.P. and Another

G.S. Solanki, J.—Petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 3.11.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad in Cr. Revision No. 144/2010 whereby the petition filed by the petitioner u/s 457 of Cr.P.C. for Supurdginama of disputed tractor was dismissed. The facts, in short, giving rise to this petition are that on 14.4.2009, petitioner purchased a tractor bearing engine No. 3A20684H 08 and Chasis No. 18113H 08 after paying a sum of Rs. 5,60,000/- to Dharmendra Rajpoot, proprietor of Vanshika Abhikaran, who issued the receipt and delivery chalan of the aforesaid tractor (Annexure P-1 and P-2). It is further alleged that the aforesaid cost included registration charges as well as insurance. Dharmendra Rajpoot has not issued sale letter in favour of the petitioner. It is further alleged that on 11.3.2010, petitioner made a complaint (P-3) to Supdt. of Police against Dharmendra Rajpoot. It is further alleged that petitioner sent the aforesaid tractor for addition of some equipments through one Mahendra Patel Narmada Udyog, the shop of Manohar Lodhi at Vidisha on 9.3.2010 and same was stationed in front of Narmada Udyog. It is further alleged that Dharmendra Rajpoot made a false report in police station Vidisha where offence u/s 39/ 192, 130(3)/ 170 of Motor Vehicles Act was registered and case was filed before the CJM, Vidisha. Dharmendra Rajpoot admitted his guilt and took the disputed tractor in his possession. It is further alleged that Dharmendra Rajpoot, proprietor of Vanshika Abhikaran, Piparia, sold the same tractor to respondent No. 2. When petitioner came to know about this fact, he reported the matter to P.S. AJK, where case was registered as per crime No. 1512010 vide Crime No. 408, 420, 467, 294, 506-B of IPC and section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against Dharmendra Rajpoot.

During investigation, tractor was seized from the possession of respondent No. 2 Uttam Singh. It is undisputed that before JMFC, Hoshangabad, this petitioner as well as subsequent purchaser respondent No. 2 filed an application u/s 457 of Cr.P.C. for taking the tractor on Supurdginama during pendency of aforesaid criminal case. Learned Magistrate dismissed both the applications vide order dated 16.7.2010 (P-4). Being aggrieved, both of them filed criminal revisions before the Sessions Court and same was disposed of vide common order dated 3.11.2010 whereby the revision of this petitioner was dismissed and revision of respondent No. 2 Uttam Singh was allowed and disputed tractor was released on Supurdginama to respondent No. 2, hence this petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that learned trial Court committed illegality by overlooking the fact that Cr. No. 15/2010 registered against respondent No. 2, who is not bonafide purchaser of tractor, due to which petitioner suffered great hardship because he has paid a sum of Rs. 5,60,000/- to Vanshika Abhikaran. He has further submitted that there is grave miscarriage of justice, hence has prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge and has prayed for to direct the release of disputed tractor on his supurdginama.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has submitted that respondent No. 2 is a bonafide purchaser of disputed tractor. He has further submitted that respondent No. 2 purchased the said tractor through State Bank of India, has further submitted that tractor was also insured in the name of respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 2 also filed an application for registration, however, same was seized during the investigation of Cr. No. 15/2010. He has further prayed that the, revisional Court did not commit any mistake which amounted to grave miscarriage of justice. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the record, case diary and impugned order dated 3.11.2010. It is apparent on record that petitioner purchased the disputed tractor after paying a sum of Rs. 5,60,000/- to Vanshika Abhikaran while respondent No. 2 Uttam Singh paid only Rs. 3,99,000/- through bankers cheque. There is a difference of a sum of Rs. 1,61,000/- in both the considerations. Learned Additional Sessions Judge failed to consider this fact, which shows that respondent No. 2 Uttam Singh is not the bonafide purchaser of disputed tractor. It also reveals from the record that disputed tractor was sent for repair by complainant from where it was seized in Cr. No. 382/2010 u/s '' 39/ 192, 130(3), 170 of Motor Vehicles Act. Proprietor of Vanshika Abhikaran admitted the aforesaid minor offence and took the possession of aforesaid tractor and thereafter sold the same to respondent No. 2 for a laser consideration as mentioned hereinabove. Since respondent No. 2 made also accused in Cr. No. 15/2010, which is pending before the trial Court and trial would take considerable time to conclude, in these circumstances, the petition is allowed, impugned order dated 3.11.2010 is hereby set aside and it is ordered that disputed tractor. seized in Cr. No. 15/2010 bearing engine No. 3A20684IJ 08 and Chasis No. 18113H 08 be released in favour of the petitioner on his furnishing supurdginama in a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs. Five Lakhs only) with a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court within one month from today with the condition that the petitioner shall not alienate or transfer the disputed vehicle till the disposal of the criminal case.

This is M. Cr C. is disposed of.