S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.1196/2005 Chhatrapal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. DATE OF ORDER : 9.7.2008 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr. Mahesh Bora, for the petitioner. Mr. VR Mehta, Public Prosecutor. Mr. Bharat Shrimali for Mr. Shambhoo Singh, for the complainant. Heard learned counsel for the parties. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner it is a glaring case of connivance between the respondent and police as they developed a devise to deprive the petitioner from the custody of vehicle by registering case under Section 207 of Motor Vehicles Act. The vehicle was seized and thereafter the respondent party submitted an application for delivering the possession of vehicle under Section 451-457 Cr. P.C. and got the possession by interim order of the court. The petitioner challenged the said order by preferring revision No.4/2005, which was dismissed vide order dated 8.8.2005. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner now the complaint under Section 207 M.V. Act itself had been dismissed by the court. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the order was passed under Section 451-457 Cr. P.C. by the trial court i.e. the Judicial Magistrate, Kherwara, District Udaipur on 10.5.2005 and that order is absolutely illegal and also not declared that the respondent is entitled to possession of the vehicle but in that order the trial court simply on the basis of interim order, which is under challenge in this petition observed that there is no need to alter the interim order. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the trial court virtually has not passed any specific order regarding delivery of vehicle, which the trial court was under obligation to pass and only confirmed the earlier order. Since the order in this misc. petition is only the interim order and that has come to an end with the passing of subsequent order 1.10.2007, therefore, without observing anything on the merits of the case, this Court deems it proper to dismiss this petition with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order of the trial court passed subsequently and in that petition, the petitioner will be free to raise all his grounds. Accordingly this petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the subsequent order on all grounds. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. Sanjay Tanwar/-