(1) CRI.APP. 3285.2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3285 OF 2005 Shri Shaikh Nizam S/o Sk. Dadamiya Age : 35 years, Occu.: Agriculturist and Business, R/o : Manjari (Saokheda) Tq. : Gangapur, District : Aurangabad .. Applicant VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra (Through : Police Inspector, Police Station, Waluj, Dist. Aurnagabad) 2. Shri Annasaheb S/o Uttamrao Nirphal Age : 39 years, Occu.: Business, R/o : Pandharpur, Tq. & District : Aurangabad .. Respondents ... Mr. V.B. Jagtap, Advocate h/f. Mr. V.D. Sapkal, Advocate for the Applicant Mr. B.J. Sonawane, APP for the respondent-State Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate for the respondent no.2 ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 12TH OCTOBER, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1. This is an Application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of order dated 12.12.2005 rendered by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Criminal Revision Application no. 246 of 2005 whereby and where-under (2) CRI.APP. 3285.2005 the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Aurangabad on 19.11.2005 came to be confirmed. 2. Heard learned Advocates for the parties and learned APP. 3. The respondent no.2 filed Application seeking custody of the Tata Tempo vehicle no. MH-09- A-7825 which was seized during investigation of the crime no. 18 of 2005. The present applicant as a third party also filed such application for custody of the same vehicle. The learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the respondent no.2 being registered owner of the vehicle, is entitled to obtain custody of the vehicle on certain terms such as execution of the indemnity bond. The order of the learned Magistrate remained intact when the revisional Application filed by the applicant (Criminal Revision Application no. 246 of 2005) came to be dismissed vide the impugned order. 4. Upon hearing learned Advocates for the parties, it is manifestly clear that both the Courts (3) CRI.APP. 3285.2005 below gave concurrent findings of the facts. There is no dispute about the fact that the applicant is not a registered owner of the Tata Tempo vehicle in question. He did not produce any registration certificate before the Trial Court. His case, in short, is that he agreed to purchase the vehicle from one Kalyan Sadashiv Jadhav. There is prima facie evidence to show that the applicant changed the chassis number by making alterations after the transaction was completed. The vehicle bearing MH-09-A-7825 was not agreed to be sold but it was the vehicle number MH-17-A-5372 but the applicant tampered with the chassis number and created certain fabricated record. 5. Considering the unfair attitude of the applicant and the fact that he is not a registered owner of the said vehicle, there is no substantial reason to entertain the Application. The scope of Application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are narrow, namely, to oversee whether there is some gross error committed by the Courts below while passing the judicial order and such error (4) CRI.APP. 3285.2005 amounts to perversity or arbitrariness. When it is noticed that there is no perversity in the impugned order, the Application is liable to be dismissed. 6. In the result, Application is dismissed. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp