IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1498 of 2010 Purushotam Kumar Dubey, son of Late Bhuneshwar Dubey, resident of Mohalla-Vikramsheela Nagar, P.S.-Kahalgaon, District- Bhagalpur. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Dani Mishra, son of Late Jaykant Mishra, the Director of Baidehi Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., CO-12 A, Ashutosh Mukharjee Road, Kolkata at present resident of Swami Viveka Nand Path, Adampur, P.S.-Alampur, District- Bhagalpur. ----------- 3. 08.09.2011 The accused petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 8.04.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Bhagalpur in Complaint Case No.2152/2008 by which the vehicle bearing registration no.WB-20G-7370 has been released in favour of the opposite party no.2. It appears that the complainant-opposite party no.2 filed a complaint case no.2152/2008 under Sections 406, 420, 323, 379, 384 and 120B of the I.P.C. alleging therein that one Pritam Kumar, son of the accused petitioner purchased a vehicle namely Scarpio bearing registration no.WB-20G-7370 after making agreement with the M/s Baidehi Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. At the time of purchase of the said vehicle, Pritam Kumar submitted a bank draft of Rs.2,64,587/-in favour of the said firm and 2 the remaining amount of the vehicle was to be paid in 35 installments. But Rs.1,25,900/-only was paid to the firm against the instalments. Reminders were made. Thereafter, on 8.12.2006, a cheque was issued in favour of the said firm for Rs.25000/- which was also not encashed. Another cheque of Rs.20000/- was also given to the complainant, which was also returned by the bank without making payment. Now, it has been claimed that Rs.5,82,000/- is due against the aforesaid vehicle. The complainant/firm filed a Misc. Case No.984 of 2008 in the City Court, Kolkata. Even after passing the order of seizure of the vehicle, the borrower gave assurance to pay the remaining dues. But in the meantime, the borrower Pritam Kumar died. After sometime on 23.11.2008 the complainant with some persons went to the house of the accused, they were threatened and at the point of pistol and threatening Rs.20,000/- was snatched from them. The vehicle was not returned to the complainant. Later on the vehicle was seized by the police. The complainant filed a petition in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate for release of the vehicle, which has been released in favour of the complainant by the impugned order dated 8.04.2010. 3 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the vehicle was seized from the jurisdiction of Naugachia police station, as such, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur had no jurisdiction to release the vehicle. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that Pritam Kumar, son of the petitioner has given Rs.6,73,387/- on different dates through the bank draft and cheque to the firm, as such, the vehicle should not have been released in favour of the complainant. The learned counsel for the State submits that the learned Judicial Magistrate has jurisdiction to release the vehicle and so far as the amount which has been paid by the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner may file statement/claim before the learned Magistrate where the complaint case is pending. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the complaint petition and other materials on the record, it appears that the complainant is the Director of the Finance Company from which Pritam Kumar, the son of the accused petitioner had taken the 4 loan to purchase the aforesaid vehicle. It was standing at the house of the petitioner at Kahalgaon when opposite party had gone to take possession of it due to non-payment of installments of loan of the vehicle. But it was refused by the petitioner. The occurrence has taken place at Kahalgaon within the jurisdiction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur. Later on, the vehicle was found uncared and seized at Naugachia by police. A report was called for prior to release of the vehicle from the Naugachia police which had no objection. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Bhagalpur has also jurisdiction to pass the orders. I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This revision application is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to raise his grievance before the learned Magistrate, if so advised. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)