Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
GITA GOPI, J.
Devabhai @ Devrajbhai Panchabhai Parmar – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
Special Criminal Application No. 9358 of 2019
Decided On : 19-06-2020
Motor vehicle – Release of Vehicle – Seeking to To quash and set aside the order passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhuj-Kachchh in Criminal Revision Application and to issue direction for the release of the truck – Held, it is an admitted position that the truck in question stands registered in the name of the petitioner herein. It transpires from the documents on record that the petitioner has also incurred substantial costs towards the maintenance of the vehicle in question. In the opinion of this Court, if the first owner of the vehicle in question has any dues to be recovered from the erstwhile owner of the vehicle, then he could recover the same by initiating appropriate civil proceedings before the competent civil Court. The document of Magma Fincorp Ltd. dated 21.06.2018 reflects that the amount of Rs. 4,93,000/- has been received in the account of Mahendra Thakkar. The Certificate of Registration of the vehicle in question in the RTO records is in the name of the petitioner herein. The said vehicle is insured with The New India Assurance Company Ltd and the name of the petitioner has been reflected in the “insured” column of the Certificate of Insurance document. Now, when the RTO records reveal that the petitioner herein is the registered owner of the vehicle in question, there does not arise any question for disputing the ownership of the vehicle in question since the person in whose name the vehicle stands registered is to be treated as the owner of the vehicle. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai's case, this Court is of the opinion that both the Courts below have seriously erred in not releasing the vehicle in question in favour of the petitioner – Petition disposed of.
Facts of the Case:
On 21.06.2018 the petitioner herein had purchased a truck bearing Registration No. GJ-12-Y-8333 from Magma Fincorp Ltd. Gandhidham for a total consideration of Rs. 5,33,000/-. It appears that on the same day the petitioner had paid an amount of Rs. 4,93,000/- to the dealer and another Rs. 40,000/- to one of the partners of the dealer company. Pursuant thereto, the possession of the truck in question along with necessary documents were handed over to the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
It is an admitted position that the truck in question stands registered in the name of the petitioner herein. It transpires from the documents on record that the petitioner has also incurred substantial costs towards the maintenance of the vehicle in question. In the opinion of this Court, if the first owner of the vehicle in question has any dues to be recovered from the erstwhile owner of the vehicle, then he could recover the same by initiating appropriate civil proceedings before the competent civil Court. The document of Magma Fincorp Ltd. dated 21.06.2018 reflects that the amount of Rs. 4,93,000/- has been received in the account of Mahendra Thakkar. The Certificate of Registration of the vehicle in question in the RTO records is in the name of the petitioner herein. The said vehicle is insured with The New India Assurance Company Ltd and the name of the petitioner has been reflected in the “insured” column of the Certificate of Insurance document. Now, when the RTO records reveal that the petitioner herein is the registered owner of the vehicle in question, there does not arise any question for disputing the ownership of the vehicle in question since the person in whose name the vehicle stands registered is to be treated as the owner of the vehicle. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai's case, this Court is of the opinion that both the Courts below have seriously erred in not releasing the vehicle in question in favour of the petitioner.
Result: Petition stands disposed
ORDER :
1. RULE. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service on behalf of the respondent State. Though served, none appears on behalf of respondent no. 2.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 06.07.2019 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhuj-Kachchh in Criminal Revision Application No. 9 of 2019 and to issue direction for the release of the truck bearing registration No. GJ-12-Y-8333.
3. The facts in brief are that on 21.06.2018 the petitioner herein had purchased a truck bearing Registration No. GJ-12-Y-8333 from Magma Fincorp Ltd. Gandhidham for a total consideration of Rs. 5,33,000/-. It appears that on the same day the petitioner had paid an amount of Rs. 4,93,000/- to the dealer and another Rs. 40,000/- to one of the partners of the dealer company. Pursuant thereto, the possession of the truck in question along with necessary documents were handed over to the petitioner.
3.1 It appears that on 18.08.2018 the respondent no. 2 herein filed the impugned first information report being I-C.R. No. 138 of 2018 registered with Bhuj City ‘B’ Division Police Station for the offences punishable under sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 114 of IPC inter-alia stating that he is engaged in the business of transportation and also used to purchase and sell trucks. It was alleged that before about six years, he had purchased the truck in question from one Karsanji Pragji by way of an agreement to sell for a consideration of Rs. 11,55,000/- in pursuance of which, the vehicle in question was also transferred to his name. Thereafter, on 27.02.2017, the son of respondent no. 2 sold the vehicle in question to one Sodha Dipaksinh Pratapsinh for a total consideration of Rs. 13,25,000/-. The said Sodha Dipaksinh Pratapsinh was required to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- in cash towards the first installment and thereafter, the purchaser had to pay Rs. 50,000/- for three months and the remaining amount of Rs. 11,25,000/- in 24 installments of Rs. 30,000/- each and the 25th installment to be of Rs. 4,05,000/-.
3.2 However, subsequently, the complainant came to know that said Sodha Dipaksinh Pratapsinh has sold the truck in question to uncle Bhoomsinh Dajaji Sodha. However, as Sodha Dipaksinh Pratapsinh had not paid the remaining amount of Rs. 2,86,000/- to him, the complainant did not sign the TTO Form on behalf of Dipaksinh or Bhoomsinh. It was further alleged that no transfer documents were executed in favour of Bhoomsinh Dajaji Sodha/Mahendra Thakkar and that in order to derive monetary gain, the accused had forged his signature on the TTO Form and produced the same before the RTO, Bhuj.
3.3 In pursuance of the filing of the impugned first information report, the vehicle in question was seized by the police on 26.10.2018. The petitioner filed an application under section 451/457 of Cr.P.C. before the Court of learned C.J.M. Bhuj praying for interim custody of the vehicle in question. However, the said application was rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 24.01.2019.
3.4 Being aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court, the petitioner herein preferred a revision application being Criminal Revision Application No. 9 of 2019 before the Sessions Court, Bhuj-Kachchh. However, the said application was also rejected by the revisional Court vide judgment and order dated 24.01.2019. Being dissatisfied with the orders passed by the Courts below, the petitioner herein has preferred the present petition.
4. Mr. Darshan Varandani, learned advocate for the petitioner, submitted that all the original documents with respect to the vehicle in question are in the name of the petitioner and the possession of the said vehicle is also with the petitioner. It was submitted that respondent no. 2, original complainant, had sold the vehicle in question to one Sodha Dipaksinh Pratapsinh on 27.02.2017 for a total consideration of Rs. 13,25,000/- and that respondent no. 2 and said Sodha Dipaksinh P
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
