CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Muskan vs State of Haryana and Another

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 16 December 2010 · Citation: (2010) 12 P&H CK 0362

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sabina, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 34, 406, 498A, 506
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-36847 of 2010
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 360 words

Sabina, J.—This petition has been filed u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ''Cr.P.C.'') for quashing of order dated 29.11.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kaithal (Annexure P8).

2.

Jagtar Singh and others are facing criminal proceedings under Sections 406, 498A, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ''IPC'') in FIR No. 90 dated 13.8.2010 registered at Police Station Cheeka. During the course of the trial, two applications were moved for seeking release of Santro Car bearing No. HR-01Z-4565 on superdari. One application dated 26.8.2010 was moved by Mahender Kumar and another application dated 27.8.2010 was moved by the complainant-Muskan.

3.

The case of the complainant-Muskan, Petitioner was that the Car in question had been given to her husband Jagtar Singh in dowry at the time of their marriage. Jagtar Singh, however, sold the same to Billu. Thereafter, the same was fictitiously transferred in the name of Mahender Kumar.

4.

During investigation, the Car in question was recovered from Jagtar Singh. It was also reported that Jagtar Singh had sold the Car to Mahender Kumar and as per the registration certificate, Mahender Kumar was the real owner of the Car in question.

5.

Before the trial Court Mahender Kumar, however, failed to produce the registration certificate wherein he was entered as owner of the vehicle. As per the photocopy of the registration certificate placed on record, Jagtar Singh, husband of the Petitioner was reflected as owner of the vehicle. Before the Revisional Court, Mahender Kumar produced the original registration certificate and as per the same Mahender Kumar was entered as owner of the vehicle on 6.8.2010. No objection certificate regarding transfer of the Car was issued prior to the said date. Since the sale consideration had been received by Jagtar Singh and the vehicle in question has also been transferred in the name of Mahender Kumar, the learned Sessions Judge rightly held that the Mahender Kumar, who was a bona fide purchaser could get the car in question released on superdari. In these circumstances, no ground warranting interference by this Court u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure is made out.

Dismissed.