G.R. Moolchandani, J.

This criminal misc. petition is preferred against order dated 22/04/2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh in Revision Petition No. 07/2015, dismissing the revision petition to release the vehicle on Superdgi.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he is the actual registered owner of the vehicle and the said vehicle was never sold to respondent No. 2 nor the requisite forms for effecting the transfer were executed. Moreover, the questioned vehicle has been seized from the possession of the petitioner-registered owner. The respondent has got no genuine title or possession of the vehicle involved, it was never sold to the respondent No. 2 nor its possession was handed over, so execution of alleged affidavit cannot deprive the petitioner from enjoying the use and obtaining the Supurdagi and possession of the vehicle. Both the Courts below have committed error in passing the impugned order. The petitioner is the actual registered owner having exclusive possession of the vehicle, so the petition be allowed and the impugned order be quashed and possession and Supurdagi of the vehicle may be accorded to the petitioner Mahendra son of Banwari.

2. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has contended that there is no illegality in the impugned order because the said vehicle was sold to the respondent No. 2 Mahendra son of Nand Ram and respondent No. 2 is entitled to get its Supurdagi. The respondent No. 2 has also lodged a FIR under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC against its actual owner-petitioner Mahendra Singh son of Banwari, who does not have any title or claim over the vehicle, since petitioner registered owner sold it to the respondent, hence there is no illegality in the impugned order, so the revision petition be dismissed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record and examined the impugned order.

The petitioner Mahendra son of Banwari Lal claims to be the registered owner of the vehicle Bolero No. HR 22K 8297, which is stated to be recovered from the possession of Mahendra S/o. Bhanwari Lal, the registered owner, since copy of the FIR available on the record lodged by respondent No. 2-Mahendra Singh son of Nand Ram vide FIR No. 535 dated 1/12/2014 for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC, reveals that the said vehicle was there in possession of the petitioner-Mahendra son of Banwari, relevant para No. 3 of the FIR is reproduced here as under:-

^^3- ;g fd vfHk;qDr us nwljs fnu ifjoknh dks dgk fd mDr okgu dh ,u0vk0lh0 rFkk dkxtkr Qrsgkckn esa gS] eSa ,d nks fnu esa vkidks ykdj ns nwaxkA tgkWa ij xkM+h tkuh gksxhA blfy, vki xkM+h esjs dks ns nks eSa ,d nks fnu esa dkxtkr o xkM+h vkidks ykdj ns nwaxkA ifjoknh vui<+ vkneh gS rFkk vfHk;qDr ij fo'okl dj xkM+h mldks ns nhA**

These contents explicitly reveals that the vehicle was there in possession of the actual owner i.e. the registered owner of the vehicle Mahendra son of Banwari. It is also important that affidavit, which is stated to be executed on 15/07/2014 does have a textual recital that Mahendra Singh son of Banwari Singh is its registered owner. The Registration certificate of the said vehicle, copy of which is available on the record, is also there in the name of Mahendra son of Banwari Singh, R/o Village Banwali, District Fatehbad, Haryana, likewise primary purchase letter does also stands in the name of the petitioner, the required form Nos.29 and 30 effecting transfer under Motor Vehicle Rules have also not been executed and these contents are there in the revision preferred before the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, though copy of the affidavit has got recital of certain transaction, but it is established that the vehicle in question unequivocally stands in the name of the petitioner and undisputably petitioner Mahendra S/o. Banwari Singh is the registered owner of the vehicle in question. The contents of the FIR allegedly lodged by re