3.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner purchased a tractorbearing Registration No.TN-46-A-9249 from one Rajapandi for a sum ofRs.2,32,000/- (Two Lakhs Thirty Two Thousand only) and he has brought thetrailer bearing Registration No.TN-60-U-8348 from one Ponnusamy @ Joker.When purchasing the tractor, the petitioner obtained a loan from Anantham MotorFinance.Due to irregular payment, the finance company seized the vehicle.The petitioner approached the third respondent for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One lakh only) as security.The third respondent received the R.C.Book as well as the Transfer form of the earlier owner as security.Thepetitioner failed to pay the interest .The third respondent along with onemore person committed theft of the vehicle and the complaint was registeredin Crime No.86 of 2015 dated 03.06.2015 for the offence under Section 294(b),379(N.P.) IPC r/w.Heard Mr.K.Sivabalan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner andMr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.S.Muthumalai Raja, learned counselappearing for the third respondent.2.This petition has been filed to set aside the order passed inCr.M.P.No.4267 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.3(1)(r) SC/ST Act. After lodging of the complaint, thethird respondent transferred the ownership of the vehicle to his name.Thepetitioner lodged a complaint in Crime No.65 of 2016 before the secondrespondent under Sections 406, 465, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC.The thirdrespondent has filed a petition in Cr.M.P.No.118 of 2016 and the same wasdismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Usilampatti and the thirdrespondent challenging the same filed the revision in Cr.R.C.No.1 of 2016before the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, PCR, Madurai.The petitioner filed a petition for return of the property in Cr.M.P.NO.4267of 2017 and the same was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate,Usilampatti.On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that the learnedMagistrate failed to consider that the complaint was launched on 03.10.2015and the respondent has transferred the ownership only on 07.10.2015 andprayed the property to be returned to him.4.On the side of the third respondent, it is stated that the thirdrespondent is the owner of the tractor who purchased the same from oneShanmugam.The petitioner worked under the third respondent misusing the position has registered a case against the third respondent.The case was nottaken up by the respondent police.Hence, he filed a private complaint.Therespondent produced the copy of the R.C. Book and copy of Insurance policy.5.On the side of the prosecution, it is stated that both the petitionerand the third respondent were claiming the vehicle and that the R.C. Bookstands in the name of the third respondent who is an accused in the case.6.Records perused.The records reveals that both the petitioner and thethird respondent claimed the property before the lower Court.The R.C. Bookis in the name of the third respondent.Already both the petitions filed bythe petitioner and the third respondent have been dismissed by the lowerCourt.The criminal revision petition filed by the third respondent beforethe lower Court is pending.7.Mere receipt for payment of some amount to the finance company is notsufficient to prove that the petitioner is the owner of the property.On theside of the third respondent, it is stated that R.C. Book and Insurancepolicy in the name of Shanmugam and insurance policy in the name of one Palanivel were filed.Copy of R.C. book is also filed.8.Whether the petitioner has borrowed any amount from the thirdrespondent is not proved by way of any documents.Mere filing of complaintsand registering of FIRs cannot confer ownership.At this stage, thepetitioner has failed to prove the ownership and the petitioner has failed toproduce sufficient documents to substantiate the claim.The reasons stated inthe petition are not satisfactory.There is no reasons to interfere with theorder of the lower Court.Hence, this criminal revision petition isdismissed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Usilampatti.2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Usilampatti, Madurai District.3.The Inspector of Police, Valanthur Police Station, Usilampatti, Madurai District.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

Cited provisions: Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code