Honble SINGH, J.–Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

(2). This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 2nd February, 93 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, No.3, Jodhpur in C.R. No. 20/93, whereby the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate directed that the vehicle be given in the ``Supurdagi of non-petitioner no.1 under Section 451 Cr.P.C.

(3). At the very outset it may be pointed out that the petitioner has not cared to give relevant facts under Section 482 Cr.P.C. He has emphasised that he obtained auto rikshaw No. RSN 903 from Barkat Ali in part performance of the contract to sell, but he has deliberately avoided stating that another agreement to sell was executed in favour of Premraj (non-petitioner no.1). However, the facts mentioned in the order dated 2nd February, 93 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.3, Jodhpur may be reproduced below:-

(4). On 8th June, 92 the petitioner Omprakash (who is accused in the criminal case registered by the police), agreed to sale the auto rikshaw No. RSN 9023 to Premraj (non-petitioner no.2) for a sum of Rs. 17,000/-. In part performance of the contract to sell, Premraj paid a sum of Rs. 3,000/- at the time of agreement and agreed to pay the remaining amount alongwith the interest in monthly instalments of Rs.500/- each. The instalments were paid on 5th July, 92, 14th August, 92, 10th September, 92 and 5th December, 92. On 8th January, 93, a cheque of Rs. 1300/- was paid. It is an admitted case that the petitioner Om Prakash had given possession of the auto rickshaw No. RSN 903 to the non petitioner no.1 Premraj at the time of agreement.

(5). On 13th January, 93 when the auto rikshaw was standing in front of the house of Premraj (non-petitioner no.1), the auto rikshaw was removed by the petitioner Om Prakash. At that time Premraj had gone to the market. When he returned from the market, he did not find the auto Rikshaw and on inquiry, he was told that the auto Rikshaw had been taken away by Om Prakash. Premraj, thereafter, lodged a first information report at the Police Station and on the basis of the first information report lodged by Premraj, the police registered a case. During the investigation, the police made recovery of the auto rikshaw. Applications were filed before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.3, Jodhpur under Section 451 Cr.P.C. by both Premraj as well as Om Prakash in this petition. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in view of the judgment of this Court in Bherudan vs. State of Rajasthan (1) held that Premraj (non petitioner no.1) was entitled to get the vehicle in his ``Supurdagi under Section 451 Cr.P.C. He therefore, passed an order to the effect that the auto rikshaw be given in the ``Supurdagi of Premraj subject to furnishing of that ``Supurdagi of Rs. 15,000/-.

(6). Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.3, Jodhpur, Omprakash has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(7). The main thrust of the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in this case, the petitioner Om Prakash is the registered owner of the vehicle and no offence of theft was committed and that the removal of the auto rikshaw from in front of the house of Premraj by the petitioner Om Prakash was lawful and in accordance with the terms of the agreement as one of the terms of the agreement was that in the event of non-payment of any one or more instalments, the seller of the vehicle would be entitled to take possession of the vehicle. In other words, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the term contained in the agreement that in the event of non-payment of one or more instalments, the petitioner (seller) would be entitled to take the vehicle in his possession, amounted to consent for the removal of vehicle from the possession t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document