CRM No. M 170 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 170 of 2011 Date of decision: 05.01.2011 Rachhpal Singh ........ Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. S P S Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 17.08.2010 passed by learned Trial Court, vide which, the application for releasing vehicle bearing No. PB 29G 8910 has been dismissed and also for quashing the order dated 23.12.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga, vide which, revision petition of the petitioner has been dismissed. The revision petition has already been dismissed. Second revision under Section 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not maintainable. As such, second revision petition under the garb of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not maintainable until and unless there is miscarriage of justice or misuse of process of law. No such injustice CRM No. M 170 of 2011 2 or misuse of process of law has been pointed out. The question herein involved is only for the release of said truck on superdari. Respondent No. 2 - Hardeep Singh is admittedly, the registered owner of the said truck. Moreover, the said vehicle was hypothecated with TATA Motors Finance Limited and the loan is sanctioned in favour of Hardeep Singh. Thus, no fault can be found with the order releasing the said truck on superdari in favour of respondent No. 2/complainant, being the registered owner of the same. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the earlier order passed by the trial Court should be maintained, vide which, application of both the petitioner as well as respondent No. 2/complainant for handing over the possession of the truck on superdari was dismissed with direction to approach afresh after the decision by the competent court of law with respect to the ownership of the said vehicle. No doubt, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Moga, vide order dated 17.08.2010, dismissed the claim of both of the petitioners as well as respondent No. 2 and had directed them to approach the competent court of law to get their ownership rights decided qua the said vehicle, however, the Special Judge, Moga in revision, allowed the application filed by the respondent/complainant-Hardeep Singh, being the registered owner of the said truck for release of the vehicle on superdari by observing that the condition of the truck would deteriorate day-by-day, in case, the same is allowed to remain in the police station. While handing over the possession of the said truck on superdari to respondent No. 2-Hardeep Singh, being the registered owner, a direction was issued that he will not sell/dispose of the CRM No. M 170 of 2011 3 same in any manner during pendency of the case and will not change its colour, registration number or other identifiable features. Thus, the right of the petitioner has also been protected as Hardeep Singh-respondent has been restrained from selling the truck and moreover the petitioner has been given the right to prove his ownership. As such, no injustice has been caused to the petitioner, in case, the truck is handed over to Hardeep Singh in stead of letting the same to remain in the police station till such a time, the ownership of the said truck is proved by the competent court of law. No merits. Dismissed. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 05.01.2011 mohan