IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.MMO No. 32 of 2010 Date of decision: 20.4.2012 Shankar Singh son of late Shri Pohu Ram, resident of Manjkhtar, P.O. Talai, Tehsil Sundernagar, Distt. Mandi, H.P. …Petitioner. Versus 1. SREI Infrastructure Finance Ltd. through its Manager (Legal), Shiv Shankar Chaudhary, Resident of D-2, Vth Floor, Sadan Park, Saket Place, New Delhi. 2. State of Himachal Pradesh. ...Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the Petitioner : Mr. C.N.Singh, Advocate, with Mr. Devinder Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Vijay Verma, Advocate for respondent No.1. Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. A.G. for respondent No. 2. ___________________________________________________________ Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) This petition has been directed against the order dated 7.9.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi in Criminal Revision No. 10 of 2008 setting aside the order dated 13.3.2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.II, Sundernagar in case No. Cr.M.A. No. 44-IV/08. . _____________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? yes 2 2. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the vehicle L & T Case 851 (Loader Backhoe) Chassis No. R-05D00490, Engine No.ST 44000084 DEHC (for short the ‘vehicle’) was forcibly taken into possession by the respondent No.1 and an FIR No. 370 dated 28.9.2007 was registered at Police Station, Sundernagar. The police after investigation filed the challan. It has been stated that petitioner filed an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.II, Sundernagar and the learned Magistrate released the vehicle in favour of the petitioner on 13.3.2008. 3. The respondent No.1 assailed the order dated 13.3.2008 and the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi set-aside the order dated 13.3.2008 and ordered the release of the vehicle in favour of the respondent No.1 on 7.9.2009. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 7.9.2009. 4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the vehicle was forcibly taken into possession by the respondent No.1 and therefore, the learned Magistrate had rightly ordered the release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has submitted that in fact the vehicle was not taken into possession forcibly by the respondent No.1 but the vehicle was handed over by Prem Singh, co-owner to the respondent No.1 vide letter dated 30.10.2006. This contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.1 has been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Heard and perused the record. It is not in dispute that the petitioner at one point of time was in possession of the vehicle under ‘Hire Purchase Agreement’ which provides that in case of default of payment, 3 the financer can take back the possession of the vehicle. It is not in dispute that the petitioner committed default. A dispute had arisen between the parties and the case was registered. At the time of registration of the case, the vehicle was in possession of the respondent No.1. The possession of the vehicle was taken by the police from the respondent No.1 during the investigation of the case. The vehicle was released by the learned Magistrate to the petitioner without notice to the respondent No.1. 6. The letter dated 30.10.2006 at Page 135 of the paper book indicates that the vehicle was handed over by Prem Singh, co-owner to the respondent No.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner has disputed the handing over of the vehicle by Prem Singh to the respondent No.1 but the proceedings under Section 457 Cr.P.C. are summary nature, therefore, this dispute whether in fact the vehicle was handed over by Prem Singh to the respondent No.1 in the manner stated in the letter dated 30.10.2006 cannot be gone into these proceedings. The fact remains that at the time of registration of the case the possession of the vehicle was with the respondent No.1, who otherwise is undisputed owner of the vehicle. In these circumstances, no fault can be found with the impugned order, resultantly the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. April 20, 2012. . ( Kuldip Singh ), (GR) Judge.