Narain Singh vs State
2022 Latest Caselaw 9440 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 497/2020

Narain Singh S/o Shri Babu Lal Ji, Aged About 30 Years, By Caste Mali, Resident Of Kiramsariya Kalla, Mathania, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State, Through Pp

2. Nizamuddin S/o Sh. Shaukat Ali, By Caste Muslim, R/o Adarsh Nagar, Makrana, District Nagaur, Authorized Representative Of Sh. Sandeep Desai S/o Sh. Karan Ji Desai, By Caste Desai, R/o Panchwati, Tehsil Girva, District Udaipur.

3. Hdfc Bank, Branch Office At Rathi Chambers, Industrial Area, Basni Police Station, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Through Its Branch Manager.

                                              ----Respondents



For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr.   Bhagirath Ray Bishnoi
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr.   Vikram Sharma PP
                               Mr.   Surendra Singh Jodha
                               Mr.   Anil Kumar Sharma

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment

Reserved on 08/07/2022 Pronounced on 20/07/2022

1. This criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C.

has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

"It is, therefore, most respectfully and humbly prayed that this Revision Petition may kindly be allowed and order/Judgment dated 26.6.2020 passed by the learned Addl Sessions Judge, Sumerpur, District Pali, in Crl Revision Petition No.23/2019 may kindly be ordered to be quashed and set aside and the order dated 23.07.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sumerpur, District Pali in Crl Misc. Case No.1588/2019 titled as State Vs Ganesha Ram for the offence U/s 39/192, 3/181, 56/192, 146/196 of MV Act may kindly be ordered to be upheld in the interest of justice."

                                           (2 of 6)                 [CRLR-497/2020]



2.      Learned   counsel    for    the     petitioner       submitted   that   on

18.06.2019, one Kuka Ram, Head Constable posted at Sanderao

Police Station, District Pali, in the performance of his duty, at

about 10:00 a.m. stopped a truck bearing Registration No.RJ 19

GE 6033, being driven by one Ganesha Ram, whereupon the said

Ganesha Ram was asked to produce the valid and effective permit,

insurance document of the vehicle, registration certificate and

other requisite documents, which he could not produce;

whereupon the vehicle was seized; thereafter, a charge-sheet has

been filed against the said driver Ganesha Ram for the offences

under Sections 39/192, 3/181, 56/192 and 146/196 of the Motor

Vehicles Act. Ganesha Ram pleaded not guilty of the charges

against him and was convicted for the said offences, but he was

released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of

offenders Act by the learned trial court.

2.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that

thereafter, the present petitioner-Narain Singh and respondent

No.2-Nizamuddin filed separate applications for release of the

aforementioned vehicle (truck) on supurdginama, whereupon

notice was issued to the respondent No.3-Bank. After that, the

learned trial court, upon hearing the parties, ordered for release of

the said vehicle in favour of the present petitioner vide order

dated 23.07.2019; aggrieved thereby, the respondent No.2 filed a

revision petition before the learned revisional court, which was

allowed vide the impugned order dated 26.06.2020, and while

quashing and setting aside the order dated 23.07.2019 passed by

the learned trial court, the matter was remanded back to the

learned trial court to pass appropriate orders afresh, after giving

due opportunity of hearing to the parties, as also keeping into

(3 of 6) [CRLR-497/2020]

consideration all the relevant documents placed on record before

it.

2.2 Learned counsel also submitted that aggrieved by the

impugned order dated 26.06.2020, the present revision petition

has been preferred, claiming the aforementioned reliefs.

2.3 Learned counsel further submitted that the learned trial

court has passed the order dated 23.07.2019, while keeping into

consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and

also duly appreciating the record of the case.

2.4 Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner is the

registered owner of the vehicle in question; on one hand

respondent No.2 himself has preferred the application for release

of vehicle on supardginama, while on the other hand, he has

preferred the revision petition before the learned court below, as

authorized representative of one Sandeep Desai, thereby making

his own averments self contradictory, and thus, the respondent

No.2 has not approached the learned court below with clean

hands, as he had not made complete disclosure regarding his

claim before the learned court below, while preferring the revision

petition.

2.5 Learned counsel further submitted that the present case is a

glaring example of the bank officials and police officials being in

hand in glove with the respondent No.2, whereby not only, a fraud

was being played with the petitioner, but the said vehicle was put

to auction, just to make the respondent No.2 as its registered

owner.

2.5.1 Learned counsel also submitted that the matter was

reported by the petitioner to the concerned Police Commissioner

(4 of 6) [CRLR-497/2020]

and a case was filed by him before the competent consumer court,

which is still pending before it.

2.6 Learned counsel further submitted that the claim of the

respondent No.2 is also under a grave suspicion, looking into the

fact that the said Sandeep Desai has not preferred any revision

petition before the learned court below, neither has he made any

claim in regard to the vehicle in question and nor had he appeared

ever before the learned court below in this case.

2.7 Learned counsel thus submitted that the learned revisional

court, while passing the impugned order and setting aside the

perfectly justified order passed by the learned trial court, has not

taken into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances of

the case and has not duly appreciated the material placed on

record before it; thus, the impugned order dated 26.06.2020

passed by the learned revisional court deserves to be quashed and

set aside, and the order dated 23.07.2019 passed by the learned

trial court deserves to be upheld.

2.8 Learned counsel relied upon the following judgments:

(a) Surendra Kumar Bhilawe Vs. The New India Assurance Company Limited (Civil Appeal No.2632/2020, decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 18.06.2020;

(b) Hosihyar Singh Vs. Anita , 2016(2) WLC (Raj.) UC 133;

(c) Man Mohan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2007(2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1492;

(d) Smt. Lali Devi & Ors. Vs. Prabhu Narayan & Ors., 2015(1) WLC (Raj.) 143 and;

(e) Mahendra Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2016(2) WLC (Raj.) UC 369.

3. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor as well as

learned counsel for the respondents opposed the aforesaid

submissions made on behalf of the petitioner.

                                           (5 of 6)                      [CRLR-497/2020]



3.1   Learned    counsel       submitted         that     for     the    purpose    of

purchasing the vehicle in question, the petitioner took a loan from

the respondent-Bank, and despite being agreed to the terms and

conditions of such loan being advanced, the petitioner did not

make the necessary payment in time. As per learned counsel, on

such failure on the part of the petitioner, the respondent-bank

sent a notice, through its Advocate, to the petitioner for making

the necessary payments, but the payments were not made;

whereupon, the authorized official of the respondent-Bank

appeared before the learned trial court with the prayer for passing

the appropriate orders, but the claim of the respondent-bank was

wrongfully not accepted by the learned trial court, while treating

the petitioner, as the registered owner of the vehicle in question.

3.2 Learned counsel thus, submitted that the learned trial court

fell in error in passing the order dated 23.07.2019, whereby the

vehicle in question was ordered to be released on supardginama in

favour of the petitioner, but the said error was rectified and

corrected by the learned revisional court, vide the impugned order

dated 26.06.2020, and rightly so.

3.3 Learned counsel therefore, submitted that the impugned

order passed by the learned revisional court does not suffer from

any error -neither in law nor on facts - and thus, the same does

not call for any interference by this Court.

4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as

perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that though it was

an admitted position before the learned revisional court that the

petitioner originally, the petitioner was the registered owner of the

vehicle, but it is also apparent on the face of the record that he

(6 of 6) [CRLR-497/2020]

miserably failed to comply with the condition of the loan advanced

to him by the respondent No.2.

5. The petitioner even failed to pay the first installment of the

loan, and consecutively thirty cheques towards such loan were

dishonoured by the bank; the bank also sent several notices to the

petitioner for making the necessary payments, but even then, the

petitioner did not make the necessary payment; thus, the

respondent-bank had no option but to put the vehicle in question

to auction, and it did so, after the order of an Arbitrator regarding

taking the custody of the vehicle by the respondent-bank. After

the vehicle in question was put to online auction, the same was

purchased by Sandeep Desai, whose attorney holder was the

respondent No.2. The vehicle in question, as is clearly apparent on

the face of the record, was being purchased by Shri Desai through

auction, after completing the due formalities and making all the

outstanding due amount towards loan of the vehicle. Thus, the

petitioner, in the facts of the present case, cannot be allowed to

take the benefit of his own wrong.

6. The judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner do

not render any assistance to the case of the present petitioner.

7. In view of the above, this Court does not find any legal

infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned revisional

court, so as to make any interference therein.

8. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending

applications stand disposed of.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

152-SKant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)