Station Guda Gaurji, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan v. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor on 08 Sep 2025

Judgment

2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. Kamlesh S/o Shyam Lal, Resident Of Dhani Boriyala Ki Tan, Ponkh, Police Station Guda Gaurji, District Jhunjhunu(Accused). Connected With ----Respondents S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6390/2022 Kamlesh S/o Shyamlal, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Dhani Boriyala Ki Tan Ponkh, Police Station Gudha Gaurji, District Jhunjhunu. ----Petitioner

2. Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. Badri Prasad S/o Prabhudayal, R/o Village Ponkh, Police Station Gudha Gaurji, District Jhunjhunu. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Mr. Balkishan Saini (in CRLMP No.7731/2022) Mr. Pavan Kumar (in CRLMP No.6390/2022) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP Mr. Balkishan Saini (in CRLMP No.6390/2022) Mr. Pavan Kumar (in CRLMP No.7731/2022) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 08/09/2025

1. Heard respective counsels for both the parties and learned Public Prosecutor as also perused the impugned orders and material placed on record before this Court. [2025:RJ-JP:36081] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-7731/2022]

2. The issue is in respect of release of Pick-up vehicle along with Louring Machine (Commercial Vehicle) bearing No.RJ-23-EA-1262 on suprdaginama, seized by police during investigation in criminal case No. 176/2022, arising out of FIR No. 292/2020, registered at Police Station Gudha, District Jhunjhunu, for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 370 and 120-B of IPC.

3. It is undisputed that vehicle in question was registered in the name of petitioner-Badri Prasad, who handed over the custody of vehicle to one Subhash and his allegation is that Subhash Chand and Kamlesh, prepared fake documents under forged signature of Badri Prasad and got transferred the registration of vehicle in the name of Kamlesh as also obtained loan from AU Finance.

4. Petitioner-Badri Prasad lodge the FIR No. 292/2020 and during the course of investigation, vehicle has been seized by police.

5. Both the petitioners- Badri Prasad and Kamlesh moved separate applications to release the vehicle on suprdaginama. Both the applications were dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 24.05.2022, whereagainst both the parties preferred criminal revision petitions. Criminal Revision Petition filed by the petitioner-Badri Prasad has been allowed whereas Criminal Revision Petition filed by Kamlesh has been rejected vide order dated

04.07.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Jhunjhunju, and the possession of vehicle has been ordered to be released on suprdaginama to petitioner-Badri Prasad, on conditions incorporated in the order.

6. Indisputably, in compliance to the order dated 04.07.2022, the possession of vehicle has not been released to Badri Prasad and [2025:RJ-JP:36081] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-7731/2022] same is laying parked at the Police Station. The reasons to not release the vehicle in favour of Badri Prasad is that the installments of vehicle loan, sanctioned to Kamlesh, are due and have not been paid to the AU Finance Company.

7. Counsel appearing on behalf of Kamlesh submits that as on date, the vehicle is registered in the Transport Department in the name of Kamlesh; vehicle was seized by police from the possession of Kamlesh; Kamlesh has obtained loan on the vehicle and is ready to pay its due installments to the Finance Company. Learned counsel submits that indeed, Kamlesh purchased the vehicle from Badri Prasad and paid sale consideration in cash, but Badri Prasad, denying such oral deal has lodged the impugned FIR with false allegations. Learned counsel submits that indeed Kamlesh is the rightful and registered owner of the vehicle, hence, custody of vehicle be released to him.

8. Counsel appearing on behalf of Badri Prasad states that Revisional Court has already issued directions vide order impugned dated 04.07.2022 to release the vehicle in question to Badri Prasad and such directions do not call for any interference by this Court. In addition, prayer of counsel for the petitioner Badri Prasad is that the liability to pay installments of vehicle loan may not be saddled on the petitioner and withholding the release of custody of vehicle to petitioner on this ground, is arbitrary.

9. Having considered the rival contentions of counsels for both the parties, this Court prima facie finds that the allegation of petitioner Badri Prasad, that the transfer of vehicle in question has been made on the basis of fake and forged documents is under trial. Mere filing of charge-sheet does not establish the factum of [2025:RJ-JP:36081] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-7731/2022] preparing documents under forged signature of Badri Prasad. The real controversy, in respect of ownership of vehicle in question, can be determined only after conclusion of criminal trial or both the parties are at liberty to approach before the Civil Court to get declared the ownership of vehicle in question.

10. At this stage, in the opinion of this Court, Revisional Court has erred in recording a finding that Badri Prasad is a registered owner of the vehicle. Indeed and indisputably, in the Transport Department, registration of vehicle has already been transferred from Badri Prasad to the name of Kamlesh and even on the date of registration of FIR, vehicle was registered in the name of Kamlesh. Further, it has also come on record that AU Finance Company sanctioned loan of Rs.1,50,000/- to Kamlesh and he was paying the installment of loan, however, in the meanwhile, due to lodging of FIR by Badri Prasad, the vehicle in question came to be seized by police, hence, Kamlesh stopped to pay the installment. However, counsel for the petitioner- Kamlesh states that Kamlesh is aggreable to pay all due installments of vehicle loan to AU Finance Company, if the custody and possession of vehicle is released to him on suprdaginama and he is allowed to ply and use the vehicle.

11. Obviously, vehicle is parked at Police Station in connection 292/2020, registered at Police Station Gudha, District Jhunjhunu and is currently laying in unused condition. Vehicle has its commercial utility and continuous non-use of vehicle may render its utility futile as well as the condition of vehicle would also ruin and cost of vehicle would go down. It is not in the interest of either of the parties to keep continue the custody of vehicle, parked at the Police Station. [2025:RJ-JP:36081] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-7731/2022]

12. In the opinion of this Court, the Revisional Court has erred in releasing the vehicle in favour of the petitioner-Badri Prasad, who is not the registered owner of the vehicle as on date. However, his right to claim ownership of vehicle is kept reserved to be adjudicated during the course of trial or in the civil proceedings, if initiated by and on his behalf.

13. For the aforesaid reasons, the order impugned dated

04.07.2022, passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Jhunjhunu, issuing the directions to release the vehicle in question on suprdaginama to Badri Prasad is hereby quashed and on the similar terms and conditions, the vehicle is ordered to be released on suprdaginama to petitioner-Kamlesh, in whose name vehicle is registered in the Transport Department and from whose custody, the vehicle was seized by police.

14. In view of above, petition filed by petitioner-Badri Prasad is hereby dismissed and criminal misc. petition, filed on behalf of petitioner-Kamlesh is allowed.

15. It is made clear that this order will not adversely affect rights of either of the parties, to claim their ownership and possession of the vehicle in question on merits, during course of criminal trial or in the civil proceedings, whatsoever may be, and whosoever is finally declared as the true owner of the vehicle, he shall be entitled to get custody and possession of the vehicle.

16. Stay application(s) and pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. pcg/183-184 (SUDESH BANSAL),J