Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 173
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.
Sandeep Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and Another - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 23971 of 2018
Decided On : 09-04-2019
P.S. Ahluwalia, Adv., Himmat Singh, Adv., Rakesh Nehra, Adv., Ravinder Hooda, Adv.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of prima facie semblance of ownership and the liability of the registered owner under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Headnote:
IPC - Theft of Vehicle - Section 379 IPC - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 2(30) and 50 - Section 451 Cr.P.C. - [SUMMARY]
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed an FIR against the petitioner for the theft of a vehicle. The trial court released the vehicle to the respondent on superdari, and the revisional court upheld the decision. The petitioner argued that there was no deal with the respondent and that the vehicle was recovered from his possession. He also raised concerns about his liability as the registered owner if the vehicle was not insured. The respondent contended that the petitioner had sold the vehicle to her and failed to transfer ownership due to his dishonest intentions.
Finding of the Court:
The courts found that the petitioner had transferred ownership to the respondent, albeit remaining the registered owner due to his fault and dishonest intention. They upheld the release of the vehicle to the respondent.
Issues: Dispute over ownership and transfer of the vehicle, liability of the registered owner, and the nature of the dispute as civil or criminal.
Ratio Decidendi: The courts relied on the prima facie semblance of ownership and the limited inquiry under Section 451 Cr.P.C. to support the release of the vehicle to the respondent. They also considered the liability of the registered owner under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, affirming the release of the vehicle to the respondent.
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.
1. This is 2nd petition praying for setting aside the order dated 26.02.2018 (Annexure P-6), vide which the trial Court released the vehicle bearing registration No.HR-12Z-0004, on superdari, in favour of respondent No.2-complainant as well as the order dated 07.05.2018 (Annexure P-8) passed by the revisional Court, vide which the revision petition, challenging the order of the trial Court, was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 Jyoti Gahlawat got registered FIR No.86 dated 15.02.2018 under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') at Police Station Rohtak Sadar, against the petitioner with the allegations that she had purchased a vehicle make Toyoto Fortuner bearing registration No.HR-12Z-0004, chasis No.MB11JV61040323, Engine No.1KDU605403, white colour, from the petitioner, for a sum of Rs.15.00 lacs, out of Rs.10.00 lacs were paid in cash and remaining amount of Rs.5.00 lacs was paid vide cheque dated 04.09.2017 of HDFC Bank. The petitioner handed over the registration certificate and an affidavit regarding sale along with three Forms No.28, 29 & 30, duly signed by him, for the purpose of transferring the vehicle in the name of the complainant. It is further stated in the FIR that the petitioner had handed over only one key of the vehicle and said that he will hand over another key and insurance to her and further assured that he will pay the loan installment upto 26.02.2018 and thereafter, he will transfer ownership of the vehicle in the name of the complainant. It is further stated that on 14.02.2018, the aforesaid vehicle was lying parked outside house of the complainant and in the morning, when her husband returned home, he found that the vehicle is missing and on inquiry, it was found that another car along with the aforesaid vehicle was seen going towards Rohtak side and on checking the CCTV footage of Makdoli Toll Plaza, it was found that both the vehicles crossed the toll plaza at about 11.54 p.m. It is further stated that since the petitioner-accused was having another key, he had stolen the vehicle along with mobile phone of her husband, arms licence, cheque book, credit card, driving licence, ATM card, PAN card and other important documents. The police arrested the petitioner and recovered the vehicle.
3. Thereafter, respondent No.2 moved an application before the Illaqa Magistrate for releasing the said vehicle on superdari in her name. Similar application was moved by the petitioner to release the vehicle in his favour. The trial Court, vide impugned order dated 26.02.2018, released the vehicle on supedari in favour of respondent No.2-complainant. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a revision petition. In the grounds of revision, the petitioner stated that in fact a stamp paper was purchased by him on 18.08.2017 in the name of one Udey Bhan, who was posted as Manager in ICICI Bank, Bhiwani and he had transferred certain amount in the account of petitioner and there is no document regarding purchase of the vehicle in the name of complainant Jyoti Gahlawat. It is also stated that the petitioner has also not signed in register of Notary Public, who attested the affidavit. The revisional Court, vide impugned order dated 07.05.2018, dismissed the revision petition.
4. The operative part of the order passed by the revisional Court reads as under: -
"Feeling dissatisfied with the impugned order, the accused has filed the present revision petition.
The plea of the complainant is that she has purchased the aforesaid vehicle for a sale consideration of Rs. 15,00,000/- and out of the sale consideration, a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- was paid in cash whereas for the remaining amount a cheque worth Rs. 5,00,000/- dated 4.9.2017, drawn on HDFC Bank was issued. In order to confirm the aforesaid sale, the requisite affidavit was executed by the accused and he also signed relevant papers for transfer of the vehicle in favour of complainant.
Original file called
