1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R Narpat Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No.164/2007 DATE OF ORDER :: February 25, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr.S.Saruparia, for the petitioner. Mr.N.Moolchandani, P.P. Mr.Ravindra Paliwal, for respondent No.2. BY THE COURT: By the instant criminal misc. petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has challenged the order dt. 31.1.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nathdwara ( for short `the revisional court' hereinafter), whereby the revision petition filed by respondent No.2 Nahar Singh against the order dt. 6.1.2007 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nathdwara (for short `the trial court' hereinafter) was allowed and the revisional court while setting aside the order of the trial court directed to release the vehicle bearing No.RJ-27-T-2336 in favour of respondent No.2. Nahar Singh on the terms and 2 conditions, which the trial court thinks fit. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the orders passed by the trial court as well as by the revisional court as also the record of the trial court. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier the registration of the said vehicle was in favour of petitioner, however, subsequently, the registration was got transferred in favour of respondent No.2 Nahar Singh. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the petitioner purchased the vehicle on finance from the financier, however, failed to repay the monthly instalments and, therefore, the vehicle was repossessed by the financier and thereafter the financier auctioned the vehicle. Respondent No.2 Nahar Singh purchased the vehicle in question in open auction and the registration of the said vehicle has also been entered in favour of respondent No.2 Nahar Singh. Originally, the jeep was in favour of petitioner, thereafter transferred to respondent No.2 Nahar Singh. The revisional court, on appreciation of the material placed before it, came to the conclusion that the vehicle stands 3 registered in the name of respondent No.2 and this fact has not been disputed. Originally the vehicle was purchased by the petitioner on finance getting the finance company. It also appears from the record that the vehicle was repossessed by the finance company when the petitioner defaulted in making regular payment of instalments. In the circumstances, therefore, at any rate, at the relevant time, the vehicle was in possession of respondent No.2 and the registration stands in his favour. In my view, the revisional court was justified in giving interim custody of the jeep to respondent No.2. I do not find any error, illegality or perversity in the order impugned warranting interference in inherent jurisdiction. It cannot be said that the order impugned would result in serious miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of any court. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. [H.R.PANWAR],J. m.asif/-