Delhi High Court - Orders
Lalit vs The State & Ors on 30 November, 2022
Author: Anup Jairam Bhambhani
Bench: Anup Jairam Bhambhani
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 4234/2022
LALIT ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.D.Chauhan & Mr.Arun K
Chauhan, Advocates via video
conferencing.
versus
THE STATE & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for the State
with SI Rakesh and HC Ashok Kumar
PS Tigri.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
ORDER
% 30.11.2022 CRL.M.A.21940/2022 By way of the present petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 ('Cr.P.C.') the petitioner seeks quashing of E-FIR No. 371/2022 dated 05.01.2022 registered under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 ('IPC') at P.S.: Tigri, New Delhi.
2. Notice on this petition was issued on 01.09.2022. Status report dated 05.09.2022 has been filed by the State.
3. Although on 14.10.2022 respondents Nos. 2 and 3, the complainants in the FIR, were represented in court, no reply has been filed by them nor are they represented in court today.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the FIR has been registered against the petitioner alleging the offence under section 379 IPC,, the essence of the allegation being that the petitioner has stolen a Mahindra Scorpio Jeep bearing registration No. UP- 15DL-2482('subject vehicle'). Counsel points-out that as recited in Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEERAJ Signing Date:05.12.2022 CRL.M.C. 4234/2022 Page 1 of 3 12:35:56 the complaint and in the FIR, the allegation is that the subject vehicle had been 'mortgaged' by the petitioner to one Sunil Kumar Bidhuri son of Shri Rajbir Singh, respondent No.3 herein, against a loan of Rs.6 lacs.
5. Counsel submits however, that without admitting the correctness of the allegation, the undisputed position is that the subject vehicle is registered in the petitioner's name, as evidenced by the certificate of registration (Form 23) dated 05.03.2021; and there is not even an allegation that the car was subsequently sold by the petitioner to either respondent No. 2 or 3.
6. Despite the above position obtaining however, vide order dated 06.04.2022 the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-04, South, Saket has directed the release of the subject vehicle on superdari to respondent No.3. Counsel submits that other things apart, the petitioner apprehends that the subject vehicle will be misused during the ensuing Municipal Elections in Delhi.
7. Learned APP appearing for the State submits that investigation in the matter is complete and chargesheet has been filed. The matter is posted next before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 23.12.2022.
8. The status report filed also reflects the same essential allegations against the petitioner, as have been enunciated by learned counsel for the petitioner.
9. Other things apart, what prevails with the court is that even assuming that there is some agreement or transaction of hypothecation of the subject vehicle by the petitioner against a loan advanced by Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEERAJ Signing Date:05.12.2022 CRL.M.C. 4234/2022 Page 1 of 3 12:35:56 respondent No. 3, the 'title' to the vehicle in such circumstances would still not pass to respondent No. 3. Since the petitioner would continue to be the 'owner' of the subject vehicle, it appears quite incredible that an allegation under section 379 IPC alleging theft of the vehicle could have been made against the petitioner; an FIR registered; and even a chargesheet filed.
10. In view of the foregoing discussion, further proceedings before the learned Trial Court are stayed, until further orders.
11. In view of what has been observed above, it would appear that respondents Nos. 2 and 3 have no basis to be in possession of the subject vehicle for any purpose.
12. Considering the apprehension expressed on behalf of the petitioner, the Investigating Officer is directed to take-back possession of the vehicle being Mahindra Scorpio Jeep bearing registration No. UP- 15DL-2482; and to deliver the same to the petitioner, within 03 days.
13. The petitioner is however restrained from selling or hypothecating the vehicle, without prior permission of the court, during the pendency of the present matter.
14. Crl.M.A. No.21940/2022 is disposed of in the above terms.
CRL.M.C. 4234/202215. Re-notify on 27th February 2023.
16. The date of 14.12.2022 stands cancelled.
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J NOVEMBER 30, 2022 ds Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEERAJ Signing Date:05.12.2022 CRL.M.C. 4234/2022 Page 1 of 3 12:35:56