Custody of a vehicle under criminal proceedings must favor the registered owner unless lawful custody is demonstrated.

1. The challenge herein is to the order Annexure P - 3, in an application under S.451, CrPC, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rampur, Distt. Shimla filed by complainant M/s. Hydro Construction Power through its Manager Shri Megh Singh Thakur and another by accused Naresh Kumar in FIR No. 60/12 dated 26.06.2012 under S.451, S.379, S.506 read with S.34 of Indian Penal Code , Police Station, Jhakri, Distt. Shimla, one of Directors of M/s. Tripura Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. whereby the custody of the vehicle i.e. Transit Mixer bearing registration No. HP - 49A - 0238 has been entrusted to the complainant.

2. The legality and validity of the impugned order has been assailed by the accused - petitioner on the grounds inter alia that custody of the vehicle could have not at all been given to the complainant, being not lawful owner whereof nor in lawful possession. On the other hand, accused - petitioner is a registered owner of the vehicle and the same is also insured vide registration policy in its name. Not only this but, it is the accused which has been paying all the taxes in respect of the vehicle. The vehicle, as a matter of fact, was parked on a piece of land taken on rent by the petitioner along with other stake holders. The record available at this stage reveals that vehicle in question was impounded by the police during the course of investigation in FIR No. 60/12 registered under S.451, S.379, S.506 read with S.34, IPC against the accused - petitioner in Police Station, Jhakri, Distt. Shimla.

3. The allegations in the FIR, in a nut - shell, are that the accused persons Naresh Kumar and Ramesh Kumar, the Directors of the Company M/s. Tripura Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. had broke open the lock and took away the vehicle, the transit mixer from the lawful custody of the complainant, Shri Megh Singh Thakur, Project Manager of the Company M/s. Hydro Construction Power. The Court below while allowing the application filed by the complainant and rejecting the one filed by the accused Naresh Kumar, has arrived at a conclusion that irrespective of the accused - petitioner is registered owner of the vehicle, the same was taken from the lawful custody of the complainant and as such released the same to the complainant M/s. Hydro Construction Power through its Project Manager, Shri Megh Singh Thakur on his furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.30,00,000/- (rupees thirty lacs) with one surety in the like amount, on the condition that its colour shall not be changed nor the same is disposed of without the permission of the Court and subject to its production before the Police or Court as and when directed.

4. Having gone through the record of the case and also taking into consideration the rival submissions viz - a - viz, the case law cited at the Bar, the present is not a case where it can be said that complainant is in lawful custody of the vehicle, as no tangible evidence is available on record to prove that the vehicle was transferred by its registered owner or on its behalf by any other authorized representative, pursuant to a lawful agreement to the complainant. Learned counsel on the strength of the list containing detail of machinery at work site has stated that pursuant to agreement executed for construction of Trench Weir, Conveyance Channel, Control Structure, Power Channel etc. in Ghanvi Hydro Electric Project, the vehicle in question along with other machinery lying on the spot was handed over to the complainant by the State Electricity Board. The vehicle, according to the complainant, was lying on the work site being in possession of the H.P. State Electricity Board after rescission of the earlier contr