JUDGMENT
M.A.A. Khan, J.
1. This petition Under Section 482 Cr. P.C. challenging the order of the learned Magistrate passed on 3.9.91 Under Section 457 Cr. P.C. entrusting the interim custody of Truck No. RSG 9025 on the Supurdagi of Suresh Kumar, respondent No. 2 arises under the following circumstances:
2. One Ghasi Lal is stated to be the original registered owner of the vehicle in question. Abdul Vahid. petitioner appears to have purchased the said vehicle from Ghasi lal and became registered owner on thereof in the year 1981. It is alleged by respondent No. 2 that on 12.11.90 the petitioner had agreed to sell the vehicle to him for a consideration of Rs. 2 Lacks and an agreement of the even debt was executed between the parties. In part performance of the said agreement Suresh Kumar is alleged to have paid a sum of Rs. 1 Lack 25 thousand to Abdul Vahid who is stated to have delivered the possession of the said Truck to by Suresh Kumar. A sum of Rs. 65,000/- is further stated to have been paid by Suresh Kumar to Abdul Vahid.
3. It is in the above background that on 5.1.91 Suresh Kumar reported of the theft of the vehicle by Abdul Vahid, petitioner, Crime No. 4/91 u/S. 379 IPC was registered at Police Station Dausa against the petitioner and after investigation of the case he was charge sheeted. Reportedly he had challenged such prosecution in S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 986/93 but the petition was dismissed by this Court on 19.7.96. It further appears that during the pendency of the investigation/trial the parties applied Under Section 451/457 Cr. P.C. to the learned trial Magistrate for delivery of the vehicle on their supurdagi. The learned Magistrate, by his order dated 21.1.91 directed the delivery of the Truck on the interim Supurdagi of Suresh Kumar, respondent. Abdul Vahid, petitioner preferred revision petition No. 12/91 against the order of the learned Magistrate before the learned Sessions Judge who doubted the genuineness of the agreement dated 12.11.90, which was the basis of claim of Suresh Kumar, respondent for the vehicle in question, and, therefore, remanded the case to the Magistrate for consideration and decision afresh by him. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Sessions Judge Suresh Kumar as well as Abdul Vahid approached this Court Under Section 482 Cr. P.C. by preferring Applications Nos. 100/91 and 722/91. This Court dismissed Abdul Vahid’s petition but on the petition preferred by Suresh Kumar the Court directed a detailed inquiry into the relevant facts attending on the execution of the agreement dated 12.11.91. The learned Magistrate in compliance of the orders of this Court conducted a thorough inquiry into the case and by his impugned order dated 3.9.91 declared Suresh Kumar, respondent as a person better entitled to the interim Supurdagi of the vehicle. It is that order of the learned Magistrate which is being challenged before this Court by way of this petition Under Section 482 Cr. P.C.
4. The main stress laid upon by Mr. Anoop Dhand, the learned Counsel for the petitioner Abdul Vahid, is that since the petitioner was the registered owner of the Truck, the interim Supurdagi must have been given by the learned Magistrate to him. On the other hand Mr. Dinesh Kala, the learned Counsel for the respondent Suresh Kumar, has contended that it was after conducting a thorough inquiry into all the relevant facts attending on the execution of the agreement deed and other documents that the learned Magistrate had thought it proper to entrust the interim Supurdagi of vehicle to respondent Suresh Kumar and, therefore, such order does not in any way amount to the abuse of the process of the Court or causes injustice to either of the parties.
5. I have gone through the impugned order and have considered the circumstances attending on the commission of the offence Under Section 379 IPC and the interim Supurdagi of the Truck to Suresh Kumar, respondent.
6. At this stage it is quite evident that the petitioner is being prosecuted for having stolen the vehicle in question. Continuance of his prosecution on the basis of the F.I.R. lodged by Suresh Kumar, respondent has been approved of by this Court also in S.B. Cr. Petition No. 986/93. It was pointed out that the petitioner had also lodged F.I.R. No. 7/91 with P/s. Dausa for preparing a forged agreement deed by Suresh Kumar in respect to the vehicle in question. It was however, stated by Mr. Kala, learned Counsel for the respondent, at bar that a Final Report in that case has already been submitted by the police.
7. Looking to the facts narrated above the material on the record and the detailed reasoning given by the learned Magistrate in support of the conclusions arrived at by him no case for abuse of the process of the Court or failure of justice is made out.
8. Hence, the petition lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed.