1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.533 OF 2009 Nisar Khan s/o Gulzar Khan Pathan ... PETITIONER VERSUS State of Maharashtra ... RESPONDENTS. and others. ----- Shri M.A. Latif, Advocate,for the petitioner. Shri B.J. Sonawane, APP, for the respondents ----- CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ. DATED : 13th August, 2009. PER COURT : 1. The petitioner sought directions to respondent No.2 to release the motor vehicle Ape Rickshaw bearing Registration No.MH-20-T-2575. The petitioner’s allegation is that on 17.5.2009, the petitioner was forced to carry the auto rickshaw in Police Station, Sillod without any valid reason and the auto rickshaw was detained without there being any seizure made of the vehicle under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act or any other relevant law. The petitioner made allegation that the Police 2 Constable A.P. Piwal was claiming an amount of Rs.1500/- and on refusal, the vehicle was taken to the police station. 2. On behalf of the respondents, Shaikh Muntajiboddin Abdul Wahab, working as Police Sub Inspector, Police Station, Sillod filed detail affidavit-in-reply. We have perused the reply and the annexures. In short, the say of the respondent is that the autorickshaw along with 9 passengers was stopped and it was enquired form the driver Salim Khan Nisarkhan, who happens to be the son of the petitioner regarding the relevant documents such as permit, etc. As the driver refused to provide the documents, the vehicle was taken to the police station. So, according to the deponent, the driver left the vehicle in the police station and went away saying that he would get the custody of the vehicle by getting Court’s orders. An entry was taken in the station diary on the same day i.e. 17.5.2009 at 2.10 p.m. The copy of the F.I.R. was forwarded to the Judicial Magistrate, First Class Court, Sillod, which is annexed to the reply. By communication dated 19.6.2009, the Police Inspector enquired regarding the ownership of the vehicle with the R.T.O., Aurangabad. By endorsement dated 20.6.2009, it was informed that the said autorickshaw vehicle was registered in the name of one Vikram Laxmanrao Shrikhande along with permit number, which was valid up to 8.3.2012. The respondent claims to have 3 issued notice to the petitioner for showing the relevant documents and for securing the custody of the vehicle, but that notice was refused to be accepted, according to the deponent, by the petitioner. 3. The petitioner raised questions of facts which are seriously disputed by the respondent. The respondent’s case is that the petitioner is not owner of the vehicle. As on today, before us, no documents are placed to show that petitioner or somebody else is owner of the vehicle or there was some transaction of sale and purchase entered into between the parties concerned. Even otherwise, we would not enter into the disputed questions of facts, more particularly when the petitioner has alternate efficacious remedy as provided in law for redressal of his grievance. 4. In the light of these developments, the petitioner has alternate efficacious statutory remedy under the Criminal Procedure Code for claiming custody of the vehicle. The petition, therefore, stands disposed of. [ SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.] [ NARESH H. PATIL, J.] fmp/cwp533.09