Sanjeev Sharma vs State Of Delhi & Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 5322 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                    Judgment reserved on: November 16, 2010
                    Judgment delivered on: November 23, 2010


+      CRL.M.C. 2902/2009

       SANJEEV SHARMA                             ....PETITIONER

                              Through:Mr. R.K.Thakur, Advocate

                        Versus

       STATE OF DELHI & ORS.        .....RESPONDENTS
               Through: Ms.Fizani Husain, APP for the State.

                             None for respondent No.2.


        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE

     1. Whether Reporters of local papers
        may be allowed to see the judgment?

     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
     3. Whether the judgment should be
        reported in Digest ?

AJIT BHARIHOKE, J.

1. Sanjeev Sharma, the petitioner herein, vide this petition under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. has prayed for quashing of impugned order of the

learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 22nd July 2009 in criminal

revision whereby he set aside the order dated 8th April 2009 passed by

learned M.M. and directed Car No.DL9CD-2438 to be released on

superdari in favour of respondent No.2.

2. Briefly stated, facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are

that on 17th May 2004 respondent No.2 R.K.Gupta, who is the

registered owner of Car No.DL 9CD-2438(Maruti Zen) filed a complaint

at P.S. Paschim Vihar claiming that the aforesaid car belonging to him

has been stolen from B-3/472, Paschim Vihar on 22nd May 2003. On

the basis of said complaint, formal FIR No.377/2004 under Section 379

IPC was registered at P.S. Paschim Vihar.

3. As per the status report filed by respondent No.1 under the

signatures of ASI Nirmaljeet Singh, during investigation above said

Maruti car was found in possession of the petitioner Sanjeev Sharma

who claimed that he had purchased the car from Raj Kumar Gupta on

10th September 2003 in consideration of `1,60,000/-. He also produced

Forms No.29 and 30 and cash receipt dated 10th September 2003, duly

signed by respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 Raj Kumar Gupta

admitted his signatures on Forms No.29 and 30 as also on the cash

receipt and claimed that he had signed those documents in blank and

given them to his younger brother, late Sanjay Gupta, about 5/6 years

back in connection with one Opel Car. He also claimed that after the

death of his brother Sanjay Gupta, his wife Mrs.Ritu Gupta misused

those blank documents. As per the status report, during investigation

Mrs.Ritu Gupta stated that aforesaid car was never stolen from her

premises No.B-3/472, Paschim Vihar, Delhi and it was never parked

there. She claimed that R.K.Gupta has given her address in the

complaint to harass her. She further stated that actually said car was

purchased by late Sanjay Gupta in the name of his younger brother

R.K.Gupta (respondent No.2) who, taking benefit of the same, sold it to

the petitioner Sanjeev Sharma. Investigation also revealed that

aforesaid car was financed by M/s Baldev Finance Company and that

respondent No.2 R.K. Gupta, concealing the fact that he had filed an

FIR relating to theft of the car, applied for duplicate Registration

Certificate at Transport Authority, Janak Puri and submitted a false

affidavit that the car was not involved in a criminal/court/theft case.

The investigating officer found the averments in the FIR to be false and

submitted the final report before the Metropolitan Magistrate, seeking

closure of the case.

4. Both the petitioner as well as respondent No.2, claiming

themselves to be the owner of the car in question, moved applications

under Section 451 Cr.P.C. for release of the car in their respective

favour on superdari. The learned M.M., vide his order dated 8th April

2009 observed, "since both the parties are claiming ownership qua

stolen vehicle, it would be appropriate for the parties to get the

declaration from the Civil Court regarding their title towards the stolen

vehicle. Hence, both the application stands dismissed." Thereafter he

listed the case for 16th May 2009 for consideration of an application

under Section 91 Cr.P.C. moved by respondent No.2 (complainant) as

also the protest petition filed by the complainant against the closure

report.

5. Respondent No.2, feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of his

application under Section 451 Cr.P.C. filed a revision petition and

learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing the parties, set aside

the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated 8th April 2009

and directed release of aforesaid car on superdari to the registered

owner i.e. respondent No.2, on furnishing a superdarinama in the sum

of `2.00 lacs to the satisfaction of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate,

subject to the condition that the superdar shall not tamper with the car

and produce it as and when directed by the trial court.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned

order dated 22nd July 2009 is bad in law as learned Additional Sessions

Judge, while directing release of car on superdari in favour of the

registered owner i.e. R.K.Gupta (respondent No.2), has ignored the fact

that respondent No.2 had sold the car to the petitioner for `1,60,000/-

and executed the consideration receipt as well as Forms 29 & 30 in his

favour to facilitate the transfer of registration of the car in petitioner's

name.

7. There is merit in the contention of learned counsel for the

petitioner. As per the status report, respondent No.2 was confronted

with those documents and he admitted his signatures on the receipt as

well as Forms 29 & 30. Respondent No.2, however, took the defence

that he had signed those documents in blank and given it to his brother

late Sanjay Gupta 5/6 years back, which explanation of respondent

No.2, prima facie, is an afterthought. It is also clear from the status

report that respondent No.2 lodged the complaint regarding the theft

of the car in question on 17th May 2004 and the FIR was registered at

P.S. Paschim Vihar on 4th June 2004. Despite that, the complainant

(respondent No.2), while applying for duplicate certificate of said car

submitted a false affidavit claiming that the car was not involved in any

crime/theft/superdari/challan etc.

8. Further, though respondent No.2 was served with the notice of

instant petition filed by the petitioner, he has not cared to file a reply

denying the facts stated in the status report or the petition. The fact

that the cash receipt for `1.60 lacs and Forms No.29 and 30 are

admittedly signed by respondent No.2 prima facie leads to an inference

that the car in question was sold by respondent No.2 to petitioner No.1.

The explanation of respondent No.2 that he had given blank signed

cash receipt Forms No.29 and 30 to his brother 5/6 years earlier, is a

question of fact which requires evidence.

9. In view of the above discussed facts and circumstances, I find

that learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed a grave error in

releasing the car on superdari in favour of respondent No.2, before the

finding of learned Metropolitan Magistrate on the closure report filed by

the police and the protest petition filed by respondent No.2.

Reasonable course of action under the circumstances was to wait for

the outcome of the closure report/protest petition filed by respondent

No.2 which could have settled the question of title also.

10. In view of the discussion above, the impugned order of learned

Additional Sessions Judge dated 22nd July 2009 is set aside.

Respondent No.2 is directed to surrender the car in question to the

police within seven days. It is directed that the learned M.M., while

deciding the protest petition against the closure report shall also pass

appropriate order for the release of the car in terms of his finding on

the protest petition.

11. The petition is disposed of accordingly.

(AJIT BHARIHOKE) JUDGE NOVEMBER 23, 2010 ks