The registered owner of a vehicle is prima facie entitled to its custody pending trial, and disputed agreements are to be resolved by the civil court.

S.S. Saron, J. - This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Criminal Procedure Code for short) has been filed against the order dated 26.3.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar, whereby the order dated 28.11.2001 of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bahadurgarh, directing the release of truck No. HR-46-A-6723 on superdari in favour of the petition, has been set aside.

2. The petitioner filed a private complaint against Jagdish (respondent No. 3) and Surajbir (respondent No. 4) and four other persons on the allegations that he is the owner of Truck No. HR-46A/6723 which he purchased in the year 1999. For the purchase of the said truck the petitioner took a loan of Rs. 5,20,000/- from M/s Tata Finance Ltd. New Delhi (respondent No. 2). The balance amount was paid by him from his own resources. For the purposes of the loan, Jagdish (respondent No. 3) sood as guarantor. It is alleged that on 23.6.2000 at about 8.30-9.00 p.m. at the exit door of H.N.G. Glass Factory, Bahadurgarh, the accused (respondent Nos. 1 and 2) alongwith our other persons forcibly took the truck from Dalbir Singh son of the petitioner and Ravinder. They also took possession of the documents including Insurance, Permit and Registration copy, besides snatching a sum of Rs. 5311/-. The petitioner is stated to have reported the matter to the police and also made a written complaint on 24.7.2000. Besides, several representations to the higher authorities were made but to no avail. The Station House Officer, Police Station, City Bahadurgarh, maintained that the accused have shown him documents of sale of truck and he was satisfied that they were lawful owners of the vehicle in question. The petitioner had also filed a civil suit for mandatory injunction in the Civil Court at Rohtak on 26.7.2001 against Jagdish (respondent No. 3) and Surajbir (respondent No. 4) for mandatory injunction directing the defendants in the said suit to hand over the custody of the Truck to him. The learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bahadurgarh sent the criminal complaint for investigation to the police. The police took the custody of the truck on 17.7.2002 and the petitioner moved an application for release of the truck on superdari in his favour. Devender Kumar (respondent No. 1) also moved an application for release of the truck on superdari in his favour.

3. Devender Kumar (respondent No. 1) took the stand that he had purchased the vehicle in question from the petitioner and in this respect an agreement dated 23.6.2000 was duly executed between the parties, which was duly attested by the Notary Public, Rohtak. As per the terms and conditions, a sum of Rs. 3,25,000/- was to be paid at the time of delivery of the vehicle and the remaining instalments to the Finance company were to be paid by him (Devender Kumar). Accordingly, he has been making the payments of the instalments due to the finance company and till date he had paid 17 instalments of the remaining amounts. The receipts were issued in favour of the petitioner being the registered owner of the vehicle in question. Respondent No. 1 Devender Kumar further alleged that he being the purchaser of the vehicle in question has legal right and accordingly that the vehicle in question be released on superdari in his favour.

4. The learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bahadurgarh vide his order dated 28.11.2001 held that the petitioner Nafe Singh is entitled to get vehicle in question on superadari. It was also held that the finding recorded in the said order would not affect the disposal of the case on merits and the same shall be treated as subject to final adjudication of the title by the Civil Court. Accordingly, the applications of the petitioner and Devinder Kumar (respondent No. 1) were disposed of.

5. The respondent No. 1 Devender Kumar filed criminal revision petition against the order dated 28.11.2001 of the Sub Divisional Judic