ORDER

14.09.2022 Heard Mr. K. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the State respondent No. 1 and Mr. A.K. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

2. By this petition under Section 482 read with Section 397 r/w Sections 457/451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘Cr.P.C.’ for short), the petitioner has prayed for setting aside and quashing of the impugned order, dated 10.01.2022, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Amingaon (‘C.J.M.’ for short) in connection with Chhaygaon P.S. Case No. 992/2021, whereby rejected the interim zimma prayer of the petitioner in respect of the seized vehicle bearing registration No. ML-10-B-

3715.

3. The petitioner’s case precisely is that on 01.09.2021, he lodged an F.I.R. at Chhaygaon P.S. wherein he, inter-alia, alleged that he is the owner of a vehicle (JCB) bearing registration No. ML-10-B-3715 and on 24.07.2018, he sold the said vehicle at a total consideration amount of Rs.20,66,907/- by executing an agreement. As per agreement, the petitioner received an amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- from the respondent No. 2 and the remaining 21 EMIs was fixed to be paid by the respondent No. 2 to the finance company. But, the respondent No. 2 consecutively failed to pay the EMIs and after 7/8 instalments concealed the vehicle, as a result of which, the finance company issued notice upon the petitioner to pay the balance amount. When the petitioner approached the respondent No. 2 and enquired about the vehicle, he did not give any information regarding the said vehicle. Somehow, the petitioner came to know that the respondent No. 2 sold the vehicle at Manipur and finding no alternative, the petitioner lodged an F.I.R. which is registered as Chhaygaon P.S. Case No. 992/2021. After recovery of the vehicle by police, the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 filed two separate zimma petitions before the Court of learned C.J.M., Kamrup, Amingaon, which was rejected vide the impugned order, dated 10.01.2022.

4. The impugned order, dated 10.01.2022 reads as hereinbelow extracted-

“10.01.2022 Both petitioners are represented.

Petitioner namely, Amin Nurul Islam filed petition No. 1164 u/s 451 Cr.P.C. praying for custody of JCB vehicle bearing registration number ML-10-B-3715 which was seized in connection with the instant case.

Petitioner namely, Md. Ajmal Hoque also filed petition no. 1178 praying for custody of the same vehicle.

Heard both sides.

Petitioner, Md. Ajmal Hoque also filed petition no. 1240 stating that petitioner Amin Nurul Islam who is the registered owner of the vehicle sold the vehicle to him by executing a sale deed date 15.07.2018 for Rs.20,66,907/- out of which he paid Rs.9,00,000/- in cash and the remaining Rs.11,66,907/- was to be paid in 21 EMIs of Rs.55,567/- and the petitioner stated that he cleared the entire amount but the registered owner did not deposit the money to the financer.

The registered owner, i.e. petitioner Amin Nurul Islam denied that petitioner Ajmal Hoque deposited the EMIs.

Learned counsel for petitioner, Amin Nurul Islam admitted of receiving Rs.9,00,000/- but denied that Ajmal Hoque deposited the remaining EMI as agreed.

Learned counsel for both the zimma petitioners on several occasions prayed for time to produce relevant documents regarding the transaction of money but failed to do so and today, both the counsel for the petitioners prayed that the zimma petitions to be dismissed.

As the ownership of the seized JCB vehicle bearing registration number ML-10-B-3715 could not be ascertained, I am not inclined to allow the zimma petition no. 1164 & 1178 and accordingly, both the petitions stands rejected.

Zimma Petition nos. 1164 and 1178 are disposed of.”

5. I have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel of both sides. Perused record.

6. In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283, the Hon’ble Supre