Court No. - 24 Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 3843 of 2010 Petitioner :- Raj Kumar @ Ram Karan S/O Rameshwar Dayal Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Deputy Commissioner (Transport) Zone & Or Petitioner Counsel :- Raghunath Prasad Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Amrendra Singh Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma,J.
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel
for the opposite parties No.1 and 2 and Sri Amrendra Singh, learned
Counsel for the opposite party No.3.
By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the
order dated 23.2.2010 passed by the opposite party No.1, as contained
in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition, whereby appeal filed by him has
been allowed in favour of the opposite party No.2.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that opposite party No.4-
Riyaz Mohammad was owner of vehicle No. HR-26-D-5452 (Marshal
Jeep). On 21.4.2007, the petitioner purchased the vehicle in question
from the opposite party No.4, after payment of Rs.93,000/- to the
opposite party No.4 and registration/transfer of the said vehicle has
been issued by the opposite party No.4 in favour of the petitioner on
24.12.2007. Thereafter, the opposite party No.4 has moved an
application before Magistrate, Kheri under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.,
stating therein that the petitioner and his associates has came in house
of the opposite party No.4 on 24.8.2007 at about 10:00 A.M. and they
taken away his vehicle forcibly and also threatened him, to which
Magistrate, Kheri directed the police station Mohammdi for registration
of FIR against the petitioner and others and also directed for
investigation of the matter.
He submits that pursuant to the direction of Magistrate, an FIR was
registered against the petitioner and others. The Investigating Officer,
after recording the statement of the witnesses, submitted charge-sheet
against the petitioner and others under Sections
323/504/506/452/406/420 IPC on 16.11.2007. He submits that on the
basis of the said FIR, the police has taken away the vehicle in question
from the possession of the petitioner. Thereafter, on 20.4.2007, the
opposite party No.4 has prepared a fake sale letter in favour of the
opposite party No.3. On 22.1.2008, the petitioner moved an application
before the Magistrate for release the vehicle in question in his favour, to
which the Magistrate directed the opposite party No.2 to submit his
report. In compliance thereof, the opposite party No.2 submitted his
report. The Magistrate, vide order dated 15.3.2008, rejected the
petitioner’s application. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed a
revision. The revisional Court, vide order dated 24.4.2009, allowed the
revision and directed the Magistrate to release the vehicle in question in
favour of the petitioner.
He submits that against the order dated 24.4.2009, the opposite party
No.3 filed a writ petition, which was numbered as writ petition No. 10639
(MB) of 2008, before this Court. A Division Bench of this Court, vide
order dated 26.11.2008, dismissed the writ petition with the liberty to the
petitioner to move the application and if such an application is filed, the
same may be considered as per the discretion of the competent
authority. In compliance thereof, the opposite party No.3 moved an
application on 19.1.2009. Opposite party No.2, vide order dated
1.4.2009, rejected the application of the opposite party No.3 dated
19.1.2009. Feeling aggrieved, the opposite party No.3 filed an appeal
before the opposite party No.1, which was registered as Appeal No. 5 of
2009. Subsequently, the opposite party No.3 has also filed a writ
petition, which was numbered as writ petition No. 2331 of 2009 (MS),
before this Court. This Court, vide order dated 4.5.2009, directed the
trial Court to maintain status quo in regard to the vehicle in question, till
the next date of listing. Thereafter, the opposite party No.1 allowed the
appeal of the opposite party No.3 by the order dated 23.2.2010. Feeling
aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition.
Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing
Counsel, I do not find any illegality and infirmity in the impugned order.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 8.7.2010
Ajit/-