Dismissed

Om Prakash v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Rajasthan HC22 Aug 2015CRLMP/3871/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the dismissal of an application for release of a seized JCB machine on Supurdiginama. The High Court found no illegality or perversity in the lower court's order, noting the petitioner failed to transfer registration or prove possession. Petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petition and stay application dismissed.

Om Prakash Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH,JAIPUR.

¶3

S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION No.3871/2015 Om Prakash V/S State of Rajasthan & Anr.

¶4

DATE OF ORDER ::: 22.8.2015

¶5

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR AGARWAL

¶6

Shri Arvind Bhardwaj, for petitioner. Shri Anil Yadav, Public Prosecutor. Shri Ashvin Garg for respondent No.2.

¶7

The petitioner complainant has filed this criminal miscellaneous petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. against that part of the order dated 16.7.2014 whereby learned Judicial Magistrate, Kekri (District Ajmer) by dismissing the application dated 13.5.2014 u/s 451 Cr.P.C. refused to release the seized JCB machine bearing registration No.RJ-25-EA-0117 in favour of the petitioner on Supurdiginama.

¶8

It is to be noted that the aforesaid vehicle was seized by the police during the course of investigation in respect of FIR No.170/2013 registered at Police Station Sawar (District Ajmer) for offences under sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC on the report of the petitioner.

¶9

On consideration of submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the material made available on record and more

¶10

¶11

particularly looking to the reasons recorded by learned court below in support of the impugned order and the fact that no steps were taken by the petitioner for transfer of registration of the aforesaid vehicle in his favour after the alleged agreement to sell dated 11.11.2012 and no evidence even prima facie has been made available on record showing that possession of the vehicle was handed over to him, I do not find any illegality or perversity in that part of the impugned order whereby the aforesaid application filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

¶12

Consequently, the criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed.

¶13

Stay application also stands dismissed.

¶14

(PRASHANT KUMAR AGARWAL),J.

¶15

CHAUHAN/132

¶16

All corrections made in the judgment/ order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed. Chauhan Sr.P.A.

Om Prakash v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Kishan@Kishan Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Shishram Vs State

Ramavtar Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Pitamber Vs Leela Devi and Ors.

Phool Chand Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Baluram Vs R S R T C