JUDGMENT
N.L. Tibrewal, J.
1. Being aggrieved against the order/judgment dated October 24, 1990 of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Beawar, in criminal revision No. 14/90, the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner. The matter relates to the delivery of bus bearing registration No. RRM 5105. The said bus was seized by the police in criminal case FIR No. 143/90 P.S. Kekri, from the possession of non-petitioner No. 2 and the learned Additional Sessions judge after reversing the order of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Kekri, dated 14.1.90, directed that the aforesaid bus bearing registration No. RRM 5105 be handed over to non-petitioner No. 2 Shyam Sunder.
2. In order to appreciate the rival claims of the parties, it is necessary to narrate the facts, in brief, which are as under:
3. Petitioner Bhag Chand filed a complaint on 1.9.90 against the non-petitioner Shyam Sunder in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Kekri which was forwarded under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to SHO Police Station Kekri. On receipt of the said complaint criminal No. 143/90 under Sections 406, 420, 379 IPC was registered at P.S. Kekri on 2.9.90. The case of complainant Bhag Chand, as pleaded in the said complaint, is that on March 13, 1990, the non-petitioner Shyam Sunder entered into an agreement with him by which he agreed to sell bus, hearing registration No. RNB 8667 for Rs. 2,12,501/- and an agreement was also executed that day Rs. 85,000/- is said to have been paid by the complainant to non-petitioner Shyam Sunder as part payment towards the price of the bus. It was further stated that the said bus was registered in the name of Ratan Singh and Om Prakash of Bandikui and it was also hypothecated lo United Commercial Bank at Bandikui, as the bank had financed on the said bus. As per the complainant, non-petitioner Shyam Sunder had assured him that after the loan amount is paid to the bank, the papers relating to the vehicle shall be handed over to him.
4. Then, it is alleged that the non-petitioner Shyam Sunder did not deposit any amount in the bank and when the petitioner but pressure on him to hand over the relevant documents of the vehicle, another agreement was executed between the parties on 3.7.90, by which the non-petitioner Shyam Sunder had agreed to hand over the documents of the vehicle upto 11.7.90 and further agreed that in case he failed to hand over the papers, then the amount paid to him as part payment of the price of the vehicle shall be returned. It was further agreed that in case the money is also not returned, then he will hand over his bus bearing registration No. RRM 5105.
5. It was further alleged that on 30.8.90, the accused non-petitioner Shyam Sumder handed over bus bearing registration No. RRM 5105 to the complainant petitioner, and an agreement was also executed. Then, on 31.8.90 at about 6 PM accused non-petitioner accompanied with two-three persons came to the petitioner’s house and wanted to take back the aforesaid bus No. RRM 5105 on the assurance of returning the part payment amount of Rs. 85,000/-. However, the petitioner refused to oblige them and the aforesaid but was not allowed to be taken.
6. Lastly it was alleged that on the same day when the aforesaid bus was standing at Bus Stand, Kekri, the accused non-petitioner took away the said bus No. RRM 5105 without the consent or permission of the petitioner and the petitioner came to know about this fact next day in the morning at about 6 AM, when he went to the Bus Stand and did not find the aforesaid bus there. It was further alleged that the complainant-petitioner and his family members went to Toda, in search of the bus and they found that the aforesaid bus was standing at the Petrol Pump of accused non-petitioner Shyam Sunder.
7. After registration, the police seized the aforesaid bus bearing No. RRM 5105 3.9.90 at Bus Stand of Todaraisingh. The police recorded the statement of various persons and also seized certain documents which were submitted by the parties.
8. In the course of the investigation, the complainant-petitioner, as well as, the accused non-petitioner Shyam Sunder moved separate applications for the delivery of the said bus. The learned Magistrate vide his order dated 14.9.90 directed that the said bus should be handed over in the custody of the petitioner on such terms and conditions which were mentioned in the said order.
9. Aggrieved against the said order, non-petitioner Shyam Sunder filed a revision petition which was heard and disposed of by Additional District and Sessions Judge Beawar, who reversed the aforesaid sorder of the learned Magistrate and directed the Trial Court to get the bus back from petitioner and gave in Supurdgi of non-petitioner Shyam Sunder. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the complainant-petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
10. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the accused non-petitioner Shyam Sunder. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge should not have reversed the order passed by the learned Magistrate specially when the equities are in favour of the petitioner. He further argued that the learned Additional Sessions Judge should not have taken into consideration the result of the investigation as well as the evidence collected in the course of investigation. The learned Counsel submitted that the petitioner has paid a huge amount of Rs. 85000/- to non-petitioner No. 2 and if the order/judgment of the Additional District and Sessions Judge Beawar, is allowed to stand, he will suffer irreparable loss. Contrary to this the learned Counsel for the non-petitioner Shyam Sunder, argued that admittedly he(Shyam Sunder) is the registered owner of the bus bearing No. RRM 5105. The route permit is also in his name and the said bus was being regularly plied as a passenger vehicle on the bus route from Thdaraisingh to Tonk and it was also seized from the Bus Stand of Todaraisingh. He further submitted that the police has recorded the statement of several witnesses from which it is clear that the aforesaid bus was plied by the non-petitioner Shuyam Sunder on the bus route no 30.8.90, 31.8.90, 1.9.90 and 2.9.90 till it was seized by the police on 3.9.90 as such, the question of handing over the said bus to the petitioner does notarise. Lastly it was submitted that the order of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge cannot be said to be arbitrary, perverse or capricious, as such it is not a fit case for invoking inherent powers under Section 482.
11. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the various contentions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. I have also perused the entire record including the case diary and the statements recorded by the police during investigation. From the perusal of the case diary it is clear that the police has prepared a final report which is tagged with the case diary but the same has not been submitted as yet before the concerned Magistrate. From the case diary it further appears that the statements of several persons have been recorded who have testified that the aforesaid bus was plied by non-petitioner Shyam Sunder on the bus route on 29.8.90, 30.8.90, 31.8.90, and 1.9.90. In this connection the statements of Bajranglal, Jagdish Ramlal. Kaluram, Prahlad, Kanhaiyalal, Vinod Kumar etc. Were recorded After the investigation, the police has come to the conclusion that in fact the aforesaid bus was never delivered by non-petitioner No. 2 to the petitioner and it continued to remain in prossession of non-petitioner No. 2 on all the dates about which the petitioner has alleged that it was in his possession.
12. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has made a detailed discussion of all the facts and circumstances and the evidence collected by the Investigating Agency in the course of investigation. The learned Judge had taken into consideration that the route permit of the bus and the certificate of Registration are in the name of non-petitioner Shyam Sunder and that the said Bus was plied by him on 30.8.90, 31.8.90 and 1.9.90 on the regular route of the bus and that the bus was also seized from his possession. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also taken into consideration the alleged document dated 1.9.90 and observed that if the bus was also taken back by the non-petitioner Shyam Sunder on 31.8.90 without permission or consent of petitioner. Then there was hardly any occasion to have executed the said document on 1.9.90. The learned Counsel for the-petitioner is also not in a position to explain as to how the document could have been executed on 1.9.90 in the above situation. I also do not agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the learned Additional Sessions Judge should not have taken into consideration the evidence collected by the police in the course of investigation. In this connection, I may refer a judgment of this Court in Mst. Bhuti v. Bhanwarlal 1965 R.L.W. 291. In para No. 12 of the said judgment it has been held as under:
As regards the second objection whether gold in got recovered from Bhanwarlal was of those ornaments which Madhodass had given to him, Bhanwarlal’s own statement during investigation (Ex. P. 9) shows that the ingot was of the same ornaments and of no other. The learned Sessions Judge clearly overlooked that statement. Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that no statement made by any person in the course of an investigation under Chapter XIV shall be used for any purpose at any inquiry or trial in respect of any offence under investigation at the time when such statement was made except as laid down in the proviso. Thus the use of statements recorded during investigation is barred during an enquiry or trial relating to the offence under investigation when such statement was made. But an order for disposal of property is passed after the conclusion of an enquiry or trial as the opening words of Section 517 show and so Section 162 cannot be a bar for using those statements in possession of the property is only looked into by the court and not of its ownership Ex. 9 is therefore. Relevant and can be proved against Bhanwarlal as his admission under Section 21 of the Evidence Act. In view of the aforesaid admission of Bhanwarlal contained in Ex. P.9, it will have to be held that the ornaments which Madhodass had given to him were converted into an ingot which he had produced before the police during investigation.
13. In my view, the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge does not suffer from any infirmity so as to call any interference while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
14. Before parting with, I would like to say that admittedly the petitioner has paid Rs. 85,000/40 non-petitioner No. 2. It also appears that agreements have been executed between the parties on 13.3.90 and 3.7.90. It also appears that the last agreement was also signed by the non-petitioner but the dispute is about the date of signing and the circumstances in which it was written and signed. Which of the party is responsible for* the breach of the contract and whether the petitioner can claim any right over bus No. RRM 5105 on the basis of agreement dated 3.7.90 and 1.9.90 are such questions which can be properly decided by a competent Civil Court. I am, therefore, of the view that this order should be given effect after 15 days only from today, so that, if the petitioner wants, he may approach to the Civil Court.
15. Consequently, I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed summarily with a direction that this order shall come in force after fifteen days from today. The file of the Courts below should be sent back immediately.