1 599-13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 599 OF 2013

Arun Banshi Gholap

R/o Aher Dhanora

Taluka & District: Beed

... Petitioner

Versus

1.

Prasad Sadashiv Chaudhari

Gat No.30, Vinayak Nagar

Beed Bypass Road,

Behind Hotel Madhuban, Aurangabad

Tq. & District: Aurangabad.

2.

Kailas s/o Vitthal Dhongade

R/o Shastri Nagar, Aurangabad

Taluka & District: Aurangabad

3.

Rajiv s/o Kisan Tayade

R/o Mrutunjaya Nagar

Satara Parisar, Aurangabad

Taluka & District: Aurangabad.

... Respondents

Mr. Sudarshan J. Salunke for the petitioner

Mr. B. N. Patil for Respondent No.1

Mr. B. L. Dhus, APP for the respondent-State

CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE, J.

DATE

: 13th February, 2014

ORDER:

1.

The petition is filed to challenge the judgment and order of criminal

1/8

2 599-13

Revision No. 8 of 2013 which was pending before the Additional Sessions

Judge, Beed. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has set aside the order

made by the learned JMFC in Criminal Application No. 1092 of 2012. The

JMFC had directed to hand-over the custody of vehicle to the present

petitioner. This order was made in application filed under section 457 of the

Criminal Procedure Code. The vehicle was seized under order of warrant

made in a proceedings filed under Section 94 of the Criminal Procedure

Code by the petitioner. The Sessions Court has directed to hand-over the

custody of the vehicle to the present respondent.

2.

Both the sides are heard.

3.

It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner of a jeep bearing

No. MH-23E 5101 and the jeep was stolen by somebody from the vicinity

of his residential place on 05.11.2012. He contended that he learnt that

vehicle was in the custody of the respondent- Prasad Chaudhari. He

requested the JMFC to issue order under section 94 of the Criminal

Procedure Code. The jeep was taken in custody by the police and it was

produced before the JMFC. The JMFC made order in favour of the

petitioner as in RTO record, the jeep was transferred in the name of the

petitioner on 21.6.2012. The learned Sessions Judge has held that the

2/8

3 599-13

present respondent has better title as the registered owner had handed over

the custody of the vehicle to the respondent and he had also signed TT form

to enable the respondent to register his name in the record. The Sessions

Court has further observed that if there is grievance regarding the title, it is

open to the petitioner to go to Civil Court.

4.

It is the case of the respondents that in the year 2011, by paying

consideration of Rs.3.5 lac the respondent - Prasad Chaudhari purchased the

jeep from the registered owner Gitaram Aute. It is contended that Aute had

initially avoided to do the needful for transferring the vehicle in the name of

the respondent in the record of RTO. But the application was given in RTO

on 30.04.2011 and the application was signed by Aute. It is contended that

Aute had given written application and had signed the TT form and copies

of those documents are still with the respondent. It is contended that the

application was handed over by Aute to the RTO and on all these

documents there are signatures of Aute. It is contended that the papers

were not handed over by Aute by saying that RCTC books were missing.

5.

It is the case of the respondent that the present petitioner knows

everything and he has joined hands with Aute and only to deceive the

respondent, dispute is created. It is contended that for about one and one

3/8

4