ORDER :

1. RULE. Learned Advocates appearing for the respective respondents waive service of notice of Rule.

2. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.20254/2013 is filed by one Yusuf Mohammad Khatri who is the accused in First Information Report being I-C.R. No.61/2013 registered on 17.10.2013 with B-Division Bhuj Police Station, Kutch under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner being the accused has made a prayer to quash and set aside the above First Information Report.

3. Special Criminal Application No.1479/2014 and Special Criminal Application No.1480/2014 are filed by Tausif Ahemad Gafursha Saiyed against the common order passed in Criminal Revision Applications No.26/2014 and 27/2014 by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhuj-Kachchh. The said Tausif Ahemad Gafursha Saiyed claims to be the owner of the Vehicle, i.e. Ford Endeavour GJ-12-AR-0678 involved in the First Information Report filed by Dipak Shamjibhai Kotak.

4. Learned Advocate Ms. Nasrin H. Shaikh appearing for the applicant in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.20254/2013 submits that the complainant is working as an Agent with the RTO Department and out of business rivalry, it is submitted that a false and concocted First Information Report has been lodged and further, no ingredients of the alleged offence would get attracted to the facts of the matter. It is submitted that if at all any dispute regarding the vehicle is to be considered between the complainant and the applicant then it requires adjudication from the Civil Court. It is further submitted that the complainant was not having possession of the vehicle and the ownership of the vehicle would be of Tausif Ahemad Gafursha Saiyed who had purchased the same from Drupatsingh Himmatsinh Sodha.

5. Learned Advocate Ms. Shaikh has relied on the following judgments of the Apex Court :-

(a) Suvvari Sanyasi Apparao and Another v. Boddepalli Lakshminarayana and Another reported in AIR 1962 SC 586;

(b) Chandi Kumar Das Karmarkar and Others v. Abanidhar Roy reported in AIR 1965 SC 585;

(c) Ram Ekbal v. Jaldhari reported in 1972 Cri.L.J. 585 &

(d) Manoj Mahavir Prasad Khaitan v. Ram Gopal Poddar reported in 2010 (10) SCC 673.

6. She submits that the complainant had moved for the First Information Report alleging his bonafide claim of the right on the vehicle and if the agreement of Sale is required to be considered, then the very first requirement will be of the ownership of the vehicle which the complainant was required to enquire. It is also submitted that had there been any transactions of money then the complainant is required to go to the Civil Court of the adjudication of rights.

7. Countering the arguments, it is submitted by learned Advocate Mr. Nirav C. Thakkar appearing with learned Advocate Ms. Nisha Shah that the complainant has very categorically given all the details of the sale and the circumstances under which the possession of the vehicle was with the complainant and also the details as to when and how the accused had taken away the vehicle which was in the possession of the complainant.

8. Learned Advocate Mr. A.P. Shah for the petitioner in Special Criminal Application No.1480/2014 submitted that the possession could not be in the hands of Yusuf Mohammed Khatri since Tausif Ahemad Gafursha Saiyed was the owner of the vehicle who had purchased the same on 09.10.2013. Learned Advocate Mr. Shah referring to the copy of the R.C. Book stated that the vehicle was registered in the name of the original owner – Ninabha Himmatsinh Sodha who is the mother of Drupatsingh Himmatsinh Sodha. Mr. Shah referred to the R.C. Book showing the name of the applicant as Saiyed Tausif Ahemad, being the owner of the Vehicle.

9. The said document in the form of Certificate of Registration shows that the ownership of the vehicle was in the name of Ninabha Himmatsinh Sodha. The Agreement to Sell was executed on 09.10.2013 by the son of the original owner with Tausif Ahemad Gafursha Saiyed and the R.C. Book