((-1-)) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2232 OF 2004 Popatlal Chunilal Gandhi Applicant versus Shrinivas N. Dandi and others Respondents Shri Shriram S. Kulkarni for applicant. Shri I.M.Khairdi for R-1. Shri P.A.Pol, APP for State. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 19th October 2006 PC : 1. Heard Shri Kulkarni for applicant, Smt.Khairdi for respondent no.1 and Shri Pol, APP for State. 2. The orders under challenge are passed during the course of proceedings u/s 457 of Cr.P.C.. 3. The applicant has challenged these orders on the ground that he is the owner of a Truck and it had been stolen by the accused persons. An FIR was lodged and accordingly case was filed against the accused. Truck was attached and interim ((-2-)) custody of the same was given to the petitioner-appellant by order dated 20th April 1996. Now, the accused persons are acquitted by giving them benefit of doubt. They do not have any right, title and interest in the truck. In such circumstances, the truck cannot be handed over to them. It is in his lawful custody and, therefore, there is no question of the petitioner-appellant being a stranger be directed to return the truck. 4. Shri Khairdi points out that the petitioner could not have availed of any such remedy inasmuch as he has committed breach of the bond and transferred the truck in favour of one Payal after obtaining custody thereof from the Court. He did not approach the Court with clean hands. Hence, he does not deserve any discretionary and equitable relief. More so, in writ jurisdiction. 5. In my view, taking note of the grievance of Shri Kulkarni would amount to entering into contentious issues and more particularly in regard to the right, title and interest of the petitioner in the subject vehicle. Thus, without being in any manner influenced by the conduct of the petitioner, I am of the view that it is not ((-3-)) permissible for me to enter into any disputed question of title in the limited jurisdiction that I am exercising under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 6. In such circumstances, it was suggested by me to Shri Kulkarni that the petitioner would be at liberty to file a civil suit and assert his right, title and interest in the subject vehicle so also claim appropriate interim orders and directions therein. Shri Kulkarni after taking instructions makes a statement that this course is agreeable to the petitioner but it should be clarified that the Civil Court should decide the proceedings including interlocutory proceedings uninfluenced by any orders so also observations of the Courts below. 7. Shri Kulkarni submits that to enable the petitioner to file a civil suit and take out appropriate proceedings, the order of status-quo passed by this Court be continued for a period of four weeks. 8. Shri Khairdi has no objection to the petitioner being permitted to avail of the remedy of a civil suit. ((-4-)) 9. In such circumstances, the petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file a civil suit. The order of status-quo to continue for a period of four weeks from today. Needless to state that the Civil Court should decide the issues even at a prima facie stage on their own merits and in accordance with materials placed before it and uninfluenced by the observations of the Criminal Courts. 10. The contentions of both sides are expressly kept open. It would be open for the Civil Court to make appropriate orders with regard to possession and delivery of the truck. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)