IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc.15814-M of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : OCTOBER 16, 2008 PREETI ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Kuldeep Tiwari, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Narender Sura, AAG, Haryana. Mr. AS Virk, Advocate, for respondent No.2. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed in challenge to order dated 20.5.2008 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, and order dated 12.6.2008 (Annexure P-2), passed by the revisional court. Vide the orders, the application for release of car on Supradari has been dismissed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the order has been confirmed by the revisional court. FIR No.177 dated 9.5.2008 under Sections 498-A, 406, 420, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, against Rajit Singh (respondent No.2), Rambir Singh and Bimlesh Devi. It seems that during investigation a car bearing registration No.HR-26-AH-7311, Criminal Misc.15814-M of 2008 2 make Wagon-R, was taken into possession as case property. An application was filed by the petitioner-complainant for release of the said car on supradari on the ground that the car had been purchased out of the money withdrawn by her father from his bank. In this regard reference has been made to Annexures P-3 and P-5, which are certificates issued by M/s Vipul Motors (P) Limited, Gurgaon, and Punjab National Bank, Pipli Road, Ratgal (Kurukshetra), respectively. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that since the car was given in dowry, it would be wholly inappropriate to allow the car to be used by the accused as the money had been paid on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/accused has contested the petition on four grounds viz (i) in the garb of a petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, the present petition is a second revision and, thus, cannot be entertained; (ii) the car is required to be returned to its owner i.e. respondent No.2, who is the registered owner of the car; (iii) the car had been taken from the possession of respondent No.2/accused and, therefore, is required to be returned to him and (iv) only civil court can adjudicate in regard to the title of the car. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has drawn the attention of the court towards the reply filed on behalf of the Investigating Agency. The stand of the respondent-State is that it stands verified that the money for purchase of the car had been given by the father of the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner is the rightful owner. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have Criminal Misc.15814-M of 2008 3 considered the issue involved. Annexure P-3 is a certificate issued by M/s Vipul Motors (P) Limited, Gurgaon, and is to the following effect:- “This is to certify that we have sold a Wagon R Lxi, Colour Silky Silver, Invoice No.6002958 dated 7.12.2006 vide Chasis No.472658 Engine No.4296508 in the name of Mr.Rajit Singh son of Sh.Rambir Singh H.No.54 Sector 4, Gurgtaon (Haryana), delivered on 7.12.06 to Mr.Harish Gupta against cash order No.SXC 924908 (Branch Sr. No.1704/06) dated 30.11.2006 for Rs.3,48,000/- drawn on Punjab National Bank, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon (Haryana). Copy of Invoice enclosed.” Annexure P-5 is a certificate issued by Punjab National Bank, Pipli Road, Ratgal (Kurukshetra) and is to the following effect:- “It is certified that a cheque for Rs.3,50,000/- bearing No.SYZ 131889 has been debited on 30.11.2006 in the account of Shri G.S. Chauhan and Cash Order No. SXC 924908 (Branch No.1704) dated 30.11.2006 for Rs.3,48,000/- has been issued in favour of M/s Vipul Motors (P) Ltd., Gurgaon and sum of Rs.2000/- has been credited back in the said account.” Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has not been able to dispute the veracity of these documents. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, on behalf of the Investigating Agency, has endorsed the fact that the money was paid on behalf of the petitioner for the purchase of the car to be given in dowry to respondent No.2. The provisions of Section 451, Code of Criminal Procedure, provide that the court is required to make an order as it thinks fit for the Criminal Misc.15814-M of 2008 4 proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of inquiry or trial. In the present case, it is evident from Annexures P-3 and P-5 that the car was purchased out of the money paid by Shri G.S. Chauhan, father of the petitioner. It is only a temporary arrangement during the course of trial. A hyper technical view that only the registered owner is required to be given possession of the vehicle is not warranted in the present case, in view of overwhelming evidence in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, I find the impugned orders to be illegal and dehors the relevant material that was required to be taken into account. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice, the petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, is maintainable. No doubt, the vehicle is registered in the name of the respondent-accused, but because it was purchased out of money paid by the father of the petitioner to be given in connection with marriage of the petitioner, the second argument on behalf of respondent No.2 cannot be accepted. The fact that the possession of the car was taken from respondent No.2, is not relevant as the consideration for the vehicle was paid on behalf of the petitioner by her father. In view of contents of Annexures P-3 and P-5 and the fact that giving the vehicle on Supradari is only an interim arrangement, the matter cannot be kept pending for decision on the civil side. It shall rather defeat the purpose of Section 451, Code of Criminal Procedure. The petition is, accordingly, allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. The car would be produced before the concerned court within 10 days, whereupon it would be released in favour of the Criminal Misc.15814-M of 2008 5 petitioner, on the petitioner furnishing the Supradari Nama and subject to other conditions to be imposed by that court. October 16, 2008 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE