1 cr-wp-1836-10 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI. W.P. NO. 1836 OF 2010 Mrs. Sunita Pagare ..Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ..Respondents .... Mr. Subhash Jha Adv. i/b Mr. Amit Kasbe Adv. for Petitioner Mr. Y.S.Shinde A.P.P. for Respondent-State. .... CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE AND U.D.SALVI, JJ. DATE : FEBRUARY 02, 2011 P.C.: 1 We have heard Mr. Jha, the learned counsel for the Petitioner. 2 The petitioner had entered into a hire purchase/lease agreement with respondent no. 3 so as to hire a motor car and paid an amount of Rs. 3,10,000/- with a monthly installment for repayment. The petitioner claims that pursuant to the said agreement, hire purchase charges to the extent of Rs. 2,61,200/- remained to be paid to respondent 2 cr-wp-1836-10 no. 3 and the agreement was executed on 19.7.2007. Sometimes in the month of November, 2009, the petitioner claims that she came to know about the closure of the office of respondent no. 3 and in April, 2010, she has received a message from C.I.D. Mumbai to surrender the said vehicle and to submit the related documents. The petitioner also received a notice from Sr. Inspector of Police, Unit-V, E.O.W., C.I.D., Mumbai on 19.4.2010 requiring the petitioner to surrender the vehicle for investigation and on 7.6.2010 vehicle came to be seized. 3 The seizure so made, was subsequently brought to the notice of the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate and pursuant to the order passed by the said Court, the vehicle has been handed over to respondent no.4. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for quashing and setting aside the notice dated 19.4.2010 and for further directions to respondent no.2 to return the said vehicle under registration No. MH-01-JA-6916 to her pursuant to the hire purchase agreement entered into between her and respondent no.3. 4 In our view, the petitioner ’s remedy is to challenge the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate directing to hand over the vehicle to respondent no.4 when it is known to the petitioner that the said respondent has come in possession of the said vehicle and it is presently 3 cr-wp-1836-10 in his possession pursuant to the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Hence, when the petitioner has an equally efficacious remedy before the appropriate subordinate Court, we do not see any reason to entertain this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5 Petition is rejected. [ U.D.SALVI, J.] [ B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.]