JUDGMENT - D.D. SINHA, J.:---Heard Shri Badhe, learned Counsel for the petitioner; Shri Khapre, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3; and Shri Chawda, learned A.P.P. for respondent No. 1-State. The respondent No. 2 though served, none appeared for respondent No. 2.

2. This criminal writ petition is directed against common order dated 23-3-1998, passed by the learned 1st Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No. 2, Nagpur, below Exhibit-1, in Misc. Criminal Cases Nos. 30/1998, 31/1998 and 32/1998, whereby the trial Court allowed the Criminal Application No. 32/1998 preferred by Moreshwar s/o Baliram Khanorkar, (i.e. present respondent No. 3); and released the vehicle, in question, on Supratnama, in his favour.

3. It will be appropriate for me to consider few facts, which have given rise to the controversy, in question.

The petitioner is the finance company and doing the business of finance. On 10-10-1997, the respondent No. 2-Farukh Ahmed s/o Iqbal Ahmed Khan approached the petitioner and requested the petitioner to advance finance for the purposes of buying the vehicle, in question. The petitioner advanced loan to the respondent No. 2, to the extent of Rs. 3,95,000/-, with a condition that the respondent No. 2 should deposit Rs. 70,000/- with the office of the petitioner. The respondent No. 2, had deposited the amount of Rs. 70,000/- and, therefore, the petitioner-company had issued a cheque dated 18-10-1997 of Rs. 4,68,000/-, drawn on the Federal Bank Ltd., in the name of M/s. Jaika Motors Ltd., Nagpur, an authorised dealer of TATA SUMO vehicle. The said cheque was handed over to Jaika Motors Ltd., by the petitioner, towards the consideration of TATA SUMO vehicle. The respondent No. 2, has duly signed the relevant documents in the office of the petitioner, required for compliance of loan. The vehicle, in question, was registered with Durg R.T.O. (M.P.) on 15-12-1997, vide Registration No. MP-24 GC 0621. The respondent No. 2 supplied the xerox copy of the Registration Book of the vehicle, in question, issued by R.T.O., Durg to the petitioner. The vehicle was obtained by the respondent No. 2, under Hire Purchase agreement, executed by respondent No. 2 in favour of the petitioner. The respondent No. 2 was to repay the loan amount in 35 equal instalments, however, the respondent No. 2 had only deposited Rs. 46,743/- in the office of the petitioner, towards the loan instalments till December, 1997. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 did not pay anything to the petitioner-company.

4. It appears that, in February, 1998, the vehicle was sold by respondent No. 2, to one Moreshwar Baliram Khanorkar, (respondent No. 3) after re-registering the vehicle, in question, at Shivani R.T.O.

5. The petitioner lodged a report on 25-2-1998 in the Sitabuldi Police Station, against the respondent No. 2; and accordingly the respondent No. 2 was arrested by the Police on 25-2-1998 itself; and the vehicle, in question, also was seized by them on 26-2-1998. However, the seized vehicle bears the Registration No. MP 22-B 6992 of Shivani R.T.O., and the offence under section 420 r/w section 34 under Crime No. 122/98 came to be registered against the respondent No. 2.

6. The said vehicle from the date of seizure was lying in the Sitabuldi Police Station. The petitioner moved an application being Criminal Misc. Application Case No. 30/1998, under section 457 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, for custody of the vehicle. Similarly, the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 also moved an application for the custody of the vehicle, being Criminal Misc. Application Cases Nos. 31/1998 and 32/1998. Since the common question was involved in all these three applications regarding grant of custody of the vehicle, the trial Court, by passing the common order, impugned herein, allowed the application of the respondent No. 3, hence the present Criminal Writ Petition.

7. The Counsel for the applicant/petitioner contended that the respondent No. 2 obtained the finance from the pet

Click Here to Read the rest of this document