[2026:RJ-JP:32149] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 975/2022 CNR: RJHC020083482022 | URN: CRLMP / 1428U / 2022 Balram Son Of Shri Sajjan Singh, R/o Silpata, Tehsil Kotkasim District Alwar Through Proprietor Tractor Agency, Kotkasim, District Alwar. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. 2. Ram Pal Son Of Saroop Chand, R/o Khijuriwas, Tehsil Tijara, District Alwar. ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 976/2022 CNR: RJHC020083412022 | URN: CRLMP / 1433U / 2022 Sukhram Son Of Shri Mohar Singh, R/o Mandha, Tehsil And P.s. Tijara, District Alwar. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. 2. Ram Pal Son Of Saroop Chand, R/o Khijuriwas, Tehsil Tijara, District Alwar. ----Respondents S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6829/2022 CNR: RJHC020609182022 | URN: CRLMP / 11684U / 2022 Lalaram Son Of Shri Kanhaiya Lal, Resident Of Bhojrajka, Tehsil Kotkasim, District Alwar, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. 2. Rampal Son Of Shri Swaroop Chand, Resident Of Khizooriwas, Tehsil Tapukda, District Alwar, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Samarth Sharma (In CRLMP No.975/2022 & 976/2022) [2026:RJ-JP:32149] (2 of 11) [CRLMP-975/2022] Mr. Rahul Tiwari (In CRLMP No.6829/2022) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP Mr. Devi Singh, PP Mr. Shubham Saini, AAAG Mr. Pradeep Kumar Sharma with Mr. Subhash Kumar Dave (In CRLMP Nos. 975/2022, 976/2022 & 6829/2022) Mr. Rahul Tiwari (In CRLMP No. 975/2022) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 13/08/2026 1. These three criminal miscellaneous petitions were filed in relation to FIR No. 857/2021, registered at Police Station Bhiwari, District Alwar, for offences under Sections 420 and 406 of the IPC. 2. Miscellaneous Petitions No. 975/2022 and 976/2022 are filed by the petitioners for quashing of FIR No. 857/2021 dated 01.12.2021, as they were named accused by complainant Rampal. 3. Miscellaneous Petition No. 6829/2022 is filed by petitioner- Lalaram, aggrieved by the order dated 09.06.2022, in Criminal Revision No. 03/2022, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Tijara, District Alwar, whereby an order dated 11.03.2022 under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. for disposal of seized vehicle RJ-40-RA-3464 to registered owner was upheld and the petitioner was one of the applicant to claim the vehicle on basis of possession as the vehicle was seized, from him. 4. Learned counsel on behalf of petitioners Balram and Sukhram has submitted that complainant Rampal has lodged a false and fabricated report against the petitioners by filing a criminal complaint in the Criminal Court, and during investigation, the vehicle in question was recovered by the police and the same [2026:RJ-JP:32149] (3 of 11) [CRLMP-975/2022] was handed over and restored to the complainant. He also submitted that after receiving the vehicle, the complainant is satisfied and there is nothing to blame that the petitioners have committed an offence under Section 420 and also under Section 406 of the IPC. He also submitted neither was there any cheating nor breach of trust. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Balram has submitted that Balram has nothing to do with the instant case, as the dispute is between Sukhram and complainant Rampal, and not with respect to Balram. He also submitted that Balram is a tractor dealer and there is no agreement between Balram and complainant Rampal. He also submitted that the present petitioner is not involved in any of the transactions relating to the tractor. He also submitted that Lalaram has registered a criminal case, which was closed by the police by submitting FR, and nothing survives against the petitioners. 6. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of Lalaram, and he submitted that the petitioners Balram and Sukhram in connivance with Rampal, have committed cheating and fraud with the present petitioner. He submitted that after receipt of the sale consideration, the tractor was sold to Lalaram, but the transfer procedure has not been completed, which resulted in the current FIR, in which the police has seized the tractor. He also submitted that after the seizure, the trial court has handed over the tractor to registered owner Rampal, who already sold the tractor by executing sale letter, and the present petitioner has not only lost ₹6,00,000/- but also the tractor. [2026:RJ-JP:32149] (4 of 11) [CRLMP-975/2022] 7. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor, and he submitted the report received from P.S. Bhiwari, District Alwar and the same is taken on record. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record. 9. Complainant Rampal has filed a criminal complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwari, which was forwarded under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for registration of a criminal case under Sections 420, 406 and 506 of the IPC. The allegation of complainant Rampal is against both the petitioners Balram and Sukhram for cheating and misrepresentation. After the registration of a criminal case, the matter was investigated, and during investigation, vehicle No. RJ-40-RA-3464 was recovered. Petitioner Lalaram and complainant Rampal both have filed applications for release of the vehicle, and learned Judicial Magistrate, after considering the application of Rampal, has released the vehicle in favour of Rampal but dismissed the application of Lalaram. 10. In case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supplementary (1) SCC 335, Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down illustrative categories where quashing of proceedings is justified and same is reproduced as under: “(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an [2026:RJ-JP:32149] (5 of 11) [CRLMP-975/2022] order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or, where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 11. In case of Ankul Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. reported in 2025 INSC 1153, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the categories in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal (supra) are illustrative and not exhaustive, but they provide guiding principle to balance two competing considerations; (a) preventing abuse of process of law and (b) ensuring that criminal proceedings are not skipped at the threshold of disputed question of fact. While referring judgment in case of Inder Mohan [2026:RJ-JP:32149] (6 of 11) [CRLMP-975/2022] Goswami Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Ors., AIR 2008 SC 251, Hon’ble Supreme Court has emphasized that criminal prosecution must not be permitted as an instrument of harassment or private vendetta. 12. In the case of Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.: Criminal Appeal No.3831/2025, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that following steps should ordinarily determine the veracity of prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.(listep test):- (i)Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the materials is of sterling and impeccable quality? (ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false. (iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the 13 prosecution/complainant? (iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? [2026:RJ-JP:32149] (7 of 11) [CRLMP-975/2022] If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal – proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused. [(See: Rajiv Thapar & Ors. v. Madan Lal Kapoor (Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 2013)] 13. It is necessary that the accused must have a sound and strong case for quashing of the proceedings, but if he fails to make out a case, then the proceedings cannot be quashed. 14. In the case of Sujoy Ghosh vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr. reported in 2026 INSC 267, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that when an accused seeks quashing of FIR or criminal proceedings on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly, frivolous, vexatious and malicious, the Court is duty-bound to examine with great care. It will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averment made in FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. 15. Having considered the entire material on record and also the fact that complainant (non-petitioner No.2) Rampal and Lalaram have made allegations against the petitioners Balram and Sukhram, not only in their complaint but also in their statements, and the tractor has been recovered during investigation therefore, [2026:RJ-JP:32149] (8 of 11) [CRLMP-975/2022] no case is made out in favour of Balram and Sukhram for quashing under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., thus, the miscellaneous petitions filed by Balram and Sukhram are liable to be dismissed. 16. The material on record indicates that Rampal has claimed himself to be the owner of the vehicle on the basis of registered documents in his favour, whereas Lalaram has purchased the vehicle on the basis of a sale letter executed by the erstwhile owner. Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act defines the term "owner" and it states that the owner is the person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered. 17. There are situations with regard to a motor vehicle where, on the basis of possession but not the registration, a person can claim possessory title of the motor vehicle. The petitioner Lalaram has been claimed control and custody of the vehicle on the basis of lawful purchase of the vehicle from the earlier owner of the vehicle. It is an admitted case of Lalaram that the vehicle has not been transferred in his name and, he has already lost ₹6,00,000/-, for which he is agitated. The plight of Lalaram has explained by the counsel and it indicates that in his case, the police has closed investigation by proposing a closure report (F.R.). 18. The impugned order passed by the trial court indicates that the trial court has not considered registration vis-a-vis ownership, particularly when Lalaram has claimed ownership on the basis of lawful control and custody. The Revisional Court considering the Section 397(2) of Cr.P.C., has observed that the order is interlocutory and a revision is not maintainable. The Revisional Court referred a judgment of this Court and also opined that if the [2026:RJ-JP:32149] (9 of 11) [CRLMP-975/2022] vehicle has not been transferred from the registered owner, then he is not entitled for possession. 19. In case of Krishnan Narayana Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2026 INSC 748, Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered provision of Section 451-457 of Cr.P.C. in light of judgment in case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2003 SC 638 and observed as under:- 30. The thread of reasoning emerging from the above is that the limited object of these provisions is to ensure that property seized in the course of criminal proceedings does not suffer waste, misuse, or deterioration, and that it remains available for production before the Court as and when required. The exercise of this power requires the Court to make only a prima facie assessment of who is best entitled to possession, having regard to the nature of the property, the circumstances of seizure and the material placed before it. It does not comprise an adjudication of ownership, which falls generally within the exclusive domain of a competent civil forum. 31. We may note we do not consider it necessary to enter into the question of the reopening of investigation and the consequent seizure of the subject vehicles as being without the sanction of law in the present proceedings, as it is a matter that would fall for consideration in appropriate proceedings challenging the same and cannot by itself be determinative of the question of interim custody with which we are presently concerned. We accordingly proceed to decide the present appeals on the independent and broader question of who, as between the parties, is best entitled to interim possession of the subject vehicles, having regard to the material on record. [2026:RJ-JP:32149] (10 of 11) [CRLMP-975/2022] 20. We have examined both the orders dated 11.03.2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate and dated 09.06.2022 passed by learned Revisional Court, and we are not convinced with the reasons assigned by both the Courts below, while dismissing claim of Lalaram. The Courts below have failed to understand the basic principle of movable property that by handing over of the possession by a lawful owner, the property remains in the custody of the person to whom the property has been entrusted. There is no allegation against Lalaram even from the content of FIR, thus, Lalaram, who claimed to be a victim of the entire conspiracy, is entitled to be given a fair hearing by the Courts below. The orders dated 11.03.2022 and 09.06.2022 are liable to be quashed and the matter is required to be remitted back for reconsideration of application of Lalaram and Rampal afresh without being influenced from any of the order passed by any of the Court. 21. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 975/2022 and 976/2022 are hereby dismissed, along with pending application(s), if any. 22. The interim orders passed in both the matters are vacated, and the stay applications are dismissed. 23. Miscellaneous Petition No. 6829/2022 is hereby allowed and order dated 11.03.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate and the order dated 09.06.2022 in Criminal Revision Petition No. 3/2022 are hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwadi, for reconsideration of the applications of Rampal and Lalaram afresh, while eventuating the registered owner-ship and possessory title. 24. It is expected from the learned Judicial Magistrate to dispose [2026:RJ-JP:32149] (11 of 11) [CRLMP-975/2022] of the applications within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The learned Judicial Magistrate is also empowered to hold an enquiry, if desires to do so by recording the evidence of both the parties. 25. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate on 31.08.2026. 26. Misc. petition and misc. application stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J 51-53/GAURAV