Crl. Misc. No. M-24310 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-24310 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: May 4, 2010 Deepak Bajaj ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Pardeep Bajaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Raghbir Chaudhary, Sr. DAG, Punjab. GURDEV SINGH, J. Petitioner-Deepak Bajaj has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for setting aside order dated 11.7.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (A) Fast Track Court-I, Sangrur, and for directing the respondent to release Car bearing No. PB 59-A 0662, which was taken into custody in FIR No. 145 dated 27.8.2007 registered at Police Station Sunam, District Sangrur, under Sections 379, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. According to him, he is the bonafide purchaser of the car in question for consideration from one Noorzehra A Lalani of Dhuri. He purchased this car after getting loan of Rs. 3.50 lacs sanctioned from ICICI Bank and after verifying about the original owner from the office of the Registration Authority, Dhuri. After purchasing the car, he got the same transferred in his name. The FIR was registered in the month of August, 2007 and the recovery of the vehicle was shown on Crl. Misc. No. M-24310 of 2009 2 26.10.2007, as per the recovery memo. Feeling aggrieved by the said dispossession of the car, he filed the application before the Magistrate, which was dismissed on 15.1.2008. He challenged that order in revision petition, which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur. He is facing harassment on account of non release of the car in his favour. He is unable to pay the future installments of loan of the said vehicle, as such the Bank has already filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against him. On notice of motion having been issued, the respondent appeared in the Court and filed reply. It has been contended therein that on 27.8.2007, Inspector/SHO , Harjinder Singh, alongwith a police party, was present at Bus Stand Chathe Nakte, where he received a secret information that Rajneesh Kumar, Ravi Garg and Sanjay Kumar, in connivance with the employees of Sangrur Bank had been making forged documents regarding loan amounts and registration certificates and cheating by selling the vehicles. On the basis of that information, the FIR was registered and all three accused were arrested. During the investigation, the present petitioner and others also figured as accused and 17 vehicles were recovered from their possession. The car in dispute and another Car PB-13Q-7275, alongwith registration certificate thereof, was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. This car was registered in the name of Noorzehra A Lalani, but the documents, on the basis of which the vehicle was registered, was found to be forged. There was no person of the said name in existence. No genuine owner of the vehicle was established. After completion of the investigation, the challan was presented before the Illaqa Magistrate and the trial is in progress. The revision petition filed by the petitioner was rightly Crl. Misc. No. M-24310 of 2009 3 dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that, as per the documents placed on the record, it prima facie stands proved that this vehicle in question was purchased by Noorzehra A Lalani and the same was registered in his name. He purchased that vehicle from that owner. Being the owner, he is entitled to the custody thereof. Therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. He prayed that the vehicle be ordered to be released in his favour on superdari. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned State counsel that forged documents were prepared at the time of the registration of this vehicle in the name of a fictitious person. In these circumstances, it cannot be held that the petitioner has become the owner of the vehicle. Fraud on large scale is being played and there is no ground for releasing the vehicle on superdari in his favour. The Additional Sessions Judge, while dismissing the revision petition of the petitioner, observed that the petitioner failed to establish his genuine ownership over the vehicle, as he could not produce the original owner in order to strength his claim that he purchased the same and that it was a fair transaction and that there was no fraud in the alleged transaction. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court towards the statement of Registration Clerk, which was recorded during the investigation, wherein he stated that this vehicle was registered in the name of Noorzehra A Lalani. It is the contention of the investigating agency that no such person ever existed and the modus operandi was to fabricate the registration certificates in the names of fictitious persons and Crl. Misc. No. M-24310 of 2009 4 then get the same transferred. Keeping in view the allegations made in the FIR and that the petitioner failed to prove before the trial court and the Additional Sessions Judge, that there is such person in the name of Noorzehra A Lalani existing, it cannot be said that the order is liable to be set aside. The petition is dismissed accordingly. May 4, 2010 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE