Vijay Prakash Dhaka vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 6351 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

       S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1178/2015

Vijay Prakash Dhaka S/o Shri Mahaveer Prasad, aged , R/o
Rorubadi, P.S. Laxmangarh, District Sikar (Raj.)
                                                                        ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor.
2. S.K. Auto Finance Pvt. Ltd. Co. Office G-1/2 New Market
Khasa Kothi Circle, Jaipur (Raj.) through Authorised Signatory
Neeraj Sharma,
                                                                      ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M. I. Abbasi, Adv. on behalf of Mr. J. R. Chaudhary, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Atul Sharma, PP Mr. Naman Yadav, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order

23/09/2022

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the

petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated

27.02.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Sikar in

Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.27/2013 and Original Case

No.54/2013, FIR No.123/2013 registered at Police Station

Laxmangarh, District Sikar of the Offence(s) under Sections 302,

201, 34, 182 and 120-B IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is

registered owner of the vehicle. Petitioner and respondent filed an

application under Section 451 before the trial court but trial court

rejected the application filed by the petitioner and allowed the

application filed by the respondent and gave the vehicle to the

(2 of 2) [CRLMP-1178/2015]

respondent on Supurdginama. Learned counsel for the petitioner

also submits that petitioner is registered owner of vehicle, so,

vehicle be given to him.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance the

judgment of this Court in Mahesh Kumar Vs. Ranveer & Anr.,

S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.789/2004 decided on

13.04.2005.

Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the

arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and

submitted that petitioner was defaulter, paying loan amount and

arbitration award against him. So, trial court rightly granted the

interim custody of vehicle to the respondent. So, petition be

dismissed.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the

respondents and perused the impugned order.

The order of the trial court does not seem to be illegal. So, in

my considered opinion, present petition, being devoid of merits

and liable to be dismissed.

Therefore, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition stands

dismissed.

Stay application also stands disposed of.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Jatin /80

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)