Punjab-Haryana High Court
Darshan Singh Son Of Harnek Singh vs State Of Punjab Through Its Secretary on 26 February, 2010
Criminal Misc. No. M-5893 of 2010 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-5893 of 2010
Date of Decision: 26.02.2010
1. Darshan Singh son of Harnek Singh, r/o Handaya
Road, Opposite Hind Motors, Guru Teg Bahadur
Nagar, Barnala, Distt. Barnala.
2. Hanek Singh son of Sh. Kaku Singh, r/o Handaya Road,
Opposite Hind Motors, Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar,
Barnala, Distt. Barnala.
... Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Punjab through its Secretary, Department of
Home Affairs, Civil Secretariat, Punjab, Chandigarh.
2. Senior Superintendent of Police, Barnala, Distt.
Barnala.
3. Station House Officer, Police Station City Barnala,
Distt. Barnala.
4. The Manager, Indusind Bank, SCO 21, Firoz Gandhi
Market, Opposite Ludhiana Stock Exchange, Ludhiana,
Distt. Ludhiana.
5. Managing Director, Indusind Bank, Sudarshan
Building, 92, Chamiers Road, Chennai (Madras).
6. Abhishek Bhalla son of Sh. Raj Kumar Bhalla, r/o
Kothi No. 368, Gian Zail Singh Nagar, Ropar.
7. Nazir Khan son of Sh. Balait Khan, r/o Rajput Basti,
Binzoki Kalan, P.S. Malerkotla, Distt. Sangrur.
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER
Present: Mr. Vinod Bhardwaj, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Criminal Misc. No. M-5893 of 2010 2
SHAM SUNDER, J.
Vide this petition, the orders dated 23.12.09 and 21.01.2010, rendered by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barnala, have been challenged, vide which, it directed the release of Trollas, bearing registration Nos. PB-13-Q-6557 and PB-13-P-8659, to the registered owner, on superdari.
2. I have heard the Counsel for the petitioners, and, have gone through the documents, on record, carefully.
3. The Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the petitioners, purchased two trailors (trollas 18 tyres) mark Ashoka Leyland, bearing Nos. PB-13Q-6557 and PB-13P-8659. He further submitted that the same were financed by respondents No. 4 and 5. He further submitted that the hypothecation of the same, was entered, in the registration certificates of the vehicles. He further submitted that the petitioners, were paying instalments towards the price of vehicles regularly and were plying the same for transport purposes. He further submitted that, in the year 2007, younger brother of petitioner No. 1, and son of petitioner No. 2, namely Gurmeet Singh, fell seriously ill and was admitted, in PGI, Chandigarh. He further submitted that, thus, there was some default, in making payment of the instalments of the aforesaid vehicles, as a result whereof, the same, were taken into possession by respondents No. 4 and 5 illegally and forcibly with the help of hooligans. He further Criminal Misc. No. M-5893 of 2010 3 submitted that FIR No. 283, dated 27.11.09, under Section 392 IPC, P.S. Barnala, was registered. He further submitted that after the registration of the aforesaid FIR, the Police, recovered the vehicles, in dispute, from the possession of respondents No. 4 and 5. He further submitted that the vehicles, were standing, in Police Station, Barnala. He further submitted that, since the petitioners, were the owners of the vehicles, in question, as they had purchased the same, from respondents No. 4 and 5 by whom, the same were financed, as per the hire-purchase agreement, the superdari, thereof, was required to be given , to them, but instead, the Court below, gave the superdari thereof, in favour of the registered owners, to whom, the vehicles, had been sold, by the finance company. He placed reliance, on Narinder Kumar Singla Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2006 (3), RCR (Criminal), 890, and, Tarun Bhargava Vs. State of Haryana, 2002(3), RCR (Criminal), 312, in support of his contention. He further submitted that the orders of the Court below, being illegal, are liable to be set aside.
4. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, raised by the Counsel for the petitioners, in my considered opinion, the petition, is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons, to be recorded, hereinafter. The trial Court, at the time of deciding the application, for release of the vehicles, on superdari, is required to see, as to, in whose name, the said vehicles, are registered, in the registration certificates. At that stage, the Court, is Criminal Misc. No. M-5893 of 2010 4 not required to decide the disputed question of fact and law. The Court is also not required to hold a detailed inquiry, to find out, as to whether, the registered owners, were infact, the owners of the vehicles, in question, or somebody else was the owner thereof. The registration certificates, in itself, could be said to be prima-facie sufficient, to establish the ownership of the vehicles, in relation to the persons, in whose, favour the same, were issued. The trial Court, on obtaining the report of the Police, and after seeing the registration certificates, vide which, the vehicles, in question, had been transferred, in favour of Abhishek Bhalla and Nazir Khan, directed release of the same, in favour of the registered owners, subject to certain conditions. In Narinder Kumar Singla's case (supra), the principle of law, laid down, was to the effect, that pending adjudication of the rival claims, with regard to the title of the vehicle, in question, superdari be given, to one, whose name is mentioned, in the certificate of registration, as owner. In Rajendra Prasad Vs. State of Bihar, 2002(2), RCR (Criminal), 812 (SC), and, Manoj Vs. Shiram Tpt. Finance Ltd., 2002(2), RCR (Criminal), 730, it was observed, as under:-
"We are not deciding the question as to the title of the vehicle in dispute nor the correctness of the rival versions regarding the transactions relating to the vehicle. We do not want the vehicle to remain in the compound of the Police Station exposed to heat and cold because the automobile is likely to be lost to all in such situation. To avert this situation, we are inclined to entrust Criminal Misc. No. M-5893 of 2010 5 it temporarily to the appellant who is the ostensible name-holder in the registration certificate. The custody of the vehicle with the appellant will be on behalf of the Court and this arrangement is only till the stage when the Court passes the order regarding disposal of the property on conclusion of the trial. We direct the trial Court to release the vehicle to the appellant on the following conditions."
5. In Tarun Bhargava's case (supra), the matter related to the quashing of the FIR. It was held, that forcible repossession without intervention of the Court, by the financer, under the hire-purchase agreement, may involve commission of an offence, and what offence has been committed, will depend on facts and circumstances of the case. The distinction between the loan agreement and hire-purchase agreement was also drawn, in the aforesaid case. It was, nowhere, held, in Tarun Bhargava's case (supra), that superdari of the vehicle, to the owner temporarily, in whose name, the registration certificate, was issued, could not be made. Narinder Kumar Singla's case (supra), does not help the case of the petitioners. No help, can be drawn, by the Counsel for the petitioners, from Tarun Bhargava's case (supra), as the facts, thereof, are distinguishable. The orders of the Court below, do not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Court. The same are, thus, liable to be upheld.
6. For the reasons recorded above, Criminal Misc. No. M-5893 of 2010, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same Criminal Misc. No. M-5893 of 2010 6 stands dismissed. Any observation, made in this order, shall not be taken, as an expression of mind, on merits of the case.
7. Registry is directed, to comply with the order, by sending the copies thereof, to the Courts concerned.
26.02.2010 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE