Manoj & Anr. Vs. Shriram Tpt. Finance Co. Ltd. and Ors.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 14/2002
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 96/2001)
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 96/2001)
Petitioner: Manoj & Anr.
Respondent: Shriram Tpt. Finance Co. Ltd. and Ors.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 14/2002
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 96/2001)
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 96/2001)
Judges: G.B. PATTANAIK & R.P. SETHI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 08, 2002
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Section 451 – Release of articles – Motor vehicle ordered to be released to registered owner – Such release made subject to variation by civil court, where suit pending – Orders set aside by High Court – Status quo order by civil court also passed – If magistrate not justified in passing orders. Held that directing possession to registered owner subject to variance by civil court was fully justified. High Court orders set aside. (Para 4)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The special leave petition stands dismissed as against re-spondent no. 4 for non-publication of the notice.
2. Leave granted.
3. The dispute centres round an order passed by the High Court in revision with regard to the handing over of the possession of a motor vehicle, which stands registered in the name of the appell-ant Shri Manoj Sharma. On an application being filed before the magistrate, the magistrate directed that the vehicle be released temporarily in favour of Shri Manoj Sharma on his executing a supertnama bond of Rs. 5 lacs with a condition that he will produce the said vehicle before the court, as and when required. He shall not dispose it of till the final decision of the con-cerned case with the further condition that the order will be subject to the variation by the civil court. As it appears that a civil suit is pending before the civil court in relation to the ownership of the vehicle in question. The aforesaid order of the magistrate has been reversed by the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, and on examining the said order of the High Court, we find that there was no justifiable ground for interference with the order of the magistrate passed on 3.4.2000.
4. Mr. Rao appearing for the financier vehemently contended that in view of the pendency of the civil suits, and the order of the status quo passed therein, the magistrate was not justified in passing the order granting the vehicle in possession of Shri Manoj Sharma. We do not find any substance in the aforesaid contention inasmuch as the magistrate has categorically held in the order that the order delivering possession of the property to Shri Manoj Sharma is subject to any variation to be made by the civil court. If the financier was aggrieved by the order directing release of the vehicle in favour of Shri Manoj Sharma, who continues to be the registered owner of the vehicle, it was open for the financier to approach the civil court in the pending civil suit for interference. In this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and direct that the order of the magistrate dated 3.4.2000 be complied with, and in case Shri Manoj Sharma furnishes a necessary bond to the extent of Rs. 5 lacs, then the vehicle could be given to Shri Manoj Sharma, which would be subject to any variation of the order by the civil court.
5. The appeal is allowed.
1. The special leave petition stands dismissed as against re-spondent no. 4 for non-publication of the notice.
2. Leave granted.
3. The dispute centres round an order passed by the High Court in revision with regard to the handing over of the possession of a motor vehicle, which stands registered in the name of the appell-ant Shri Manoj Sharma. On an application being filed before the magistrate, the magistrate directed that the vehicle be released temporarily in favour of Shri Manoj Sharma on his executing a supertnama bond of Rs. 5 lacs with a condition that he will produce the said vehicle before the court, as and when required. He shall not dispose it of till the final decision of the con-cerned case with the further condition that the order will be subject to the variation by the civil court. As it appears that a civil suit is pending before the civil court in relation to the ownership of the vehicle in question. The aforesaid order of the magistrate has been reversed by the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, and on examining the said order of the High Court, we find that there was no justifiable ground for interference with the order of the magistrate passed on 3.4.2000.
4. Mr. Rao appearing for the financier vehemently contended that in view of the pendency of the civil suits, and the order of the status quo passed therein, the magistrate was not justified in passing the order granting the vehicle in possession of Shri Manoj Sharma. We do not find any substance in the aforesaid contention inasmuch as the magistrate has categorically held in the order that the order delivering possession of the property to Shri Manoj Sharma is subject to any variation to be made by the civil court. If the financier was aggrieved by the order directing release of the vehicle in favour of Shri Manoj Sharma, who continues to be the registered owner of the vehicle, it was open for the financier to approach the civil court in the pending civil suit for interference. In this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and direct that the order of the magistrate dated 3.4.2000 be complied with, and in case Shri Manoj Sharma furnishes a necessary bond to the extent of Rs. 5 lacs, then the vehicle could be given to Shri Manoj Sharma, which would be subject to any variation of the order by the civil court.
5. The appeal is allowed.
