* 1 * W.P. 1301-1302.2010 16.12.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1301 OF 2010 1. Vikram Shivajirao Patankar 2. Virendra Shivajirao Patankar 3. Sambhaji Prataprao Patankar ...Petitioners/Orig.Opponents VERSUS 1. State of Maharashtra 2. Police Inspector, Patan Police Station, Satara 3. Vishwajit Narayan Patankar ...Respondent no.3/Orig.Applicant 4. Vishwajit Sarjerao Mane ALONGWITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1302 OF 2010 1. Shivajirao Bahirjirao Patankar 2. Vijit @ Vijaysingh Narayan Patankar ...Petitioners/Orig.Applicants VERSUS 1. State of Maharashtra 2. Police Inspector, Patan Police Station, Satara 3. Vishwajit Narayan Patankar ....Respondents/Orig.Opponents * * * * * Mr. P.B. Gujar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mrs. U.V. Kezriwal, APP for State-respondent no.1. Mr. R.S. Kate, Advocate for respondent no.3. * 2 * W.P. 1301-1302.2010 16.12.2010 CORAM :- Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 16 December, 2010. P.C. :- 1. Rule. Rule, made returnable forthwith. 2. Since the question arising for consideration in both the petitions is identical i.e. interim possession of Tractor and Trolley seized by the police during the course of investigation, both the petitions are being disposed off by common judgment. 3. One, Vishwajeet Narayan Patankar, respondent no.3 to both the petitions filed a complaint on 21st March, 2009 vide C.R. No.7 of 2009 with Patan Police Station against the petitioners in both the petitions alleging offences under Sections 395, 396, 504, 506 Indian Penal Code in respect of Tractor No. MH-11/U-433 and Trolley no. MH-11/R-1452. During the course of investigation, the police seized the Tractor. Therefore, respondent no.3 filed Criminal Misc. Application No.67 of 2009 seeking interim custody of the tractor. Petitioner no.4 in the first petition and the petitioners in the second petition also filed Criminal Revision Application No. 56 of 2009 seeking same orders. The trial court by its order dated 16th July, 2009 rejected both the * 3 * W.P. 1301-1302.2010 16.12.2010 applications holding that neither of the parties should be given possession of the seized Tractor and Trolley. Both the sides then filed Revision Applications before the Sessions Court challenging the order of rejection of the respective applications. The revision applications came to be disposed off by the Sessions Court by common order dated 25th March, 2010. By its order, the Sessions Court allowed the Criminal Revision Application filed by respondent no.3, being Criminal Revision Application No. 39 of 2009 and dismissed the Revision Application filed by the petitioners. It allowed the application for custody filed by respondent no.3 and directed that the seized Tractor with the Trolly be released to respondent no.3 on the conditions stated in the order. 4. The petitioners challenge the order contending that the Sessions Court failed to consider that the Tractor was purchased jointly by the petitioners and respondent no.3 and as such, they are the co-owners of the same. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that, the petitioners in the second petition i.e. Shivajirao Patankar and Vijit @ Vijaysingh Patankar have already filed a civil suit for a declaration of title to the Tractor in question and the suit is * 4 * W.P. 1301-1302.2010 16.12.2010 pending. He submits, by referring to the sanction of loan for purchase of Tractor, by Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Society Maryadit, Satara in its Managing Committee meeting dated 19th May, 2001 that the bank had sanctioned loan to three persons i.e. the petitioners in the second petition and respondent no.3 in equal amounts for joint purchase of Tractor, Trailor and other equipments of agriculture. He produces receipts for the payments made by the petitioners towards purchase of the tractor. According to the petitioners, the registration of the vehicle with the RTO in the name of respondent no.3 was solely by way of procedural convenience. 5. The trial court had while dismissing the applications taken note of application in Form No.II dated 19th May, 2001 required for obtaining the loan and the resolution of the Society sanctioning the loan. After going through the record, the learned trial judge was of the opinion that neither party could bring on record any satisfactory piece of evidence to show whether the seized property belongs to joint family or whether it is a separate property. It also noted that since the rights of the parties would be adjudicated in the civil proceedings already filed, handing over of possession of the property * 5 * W.P. 1301-1302.2010 16.12.2010 to any one party, may cause injustice to the other party and may create multiplicity of litigation giving rise to criminal complaint. With these observations, the Trial Court had rejected both the applications for possession of the property. 6. The Sessions Court while considering the Revision Application, appears to have been swayed by the fact that the registration of the Tractor stands in the name of respondent no.3 and the contents of the power of attorney for granting the order in favour of respondent no.3. Before this Court, respondent no.3 has not produced any receipt for any payment made towards purchase of the Tractor. The power of attorney allegedly given by respondent no.3 to the petitioner, can hardly be accepted as evidence of title of respondent no.3. At this stage of the proceedings, I find substance in the contention of the petitioners that the registration in the name of respondent no.3 has been only by way of convenience and is not an indication of ownership of the tractor. 7. Considering the receipts of payment produced by the petitioners and the fact that they have filed civil proceedings claiming joint ownership in respect of the Tractor, the impugned order passed by the * 6 * W.P. 1301-1302.2010 16.12.2010 Sessions Court cannot be sustained. It has been rightly held by the Trial Court that the possession of the Tractor cannot be given to either of the parties. Hence, the petitions are allowed. The order dated 25th March, 2010 passed by the Sessions Court in Criminal Revision Applications No. 38 of 2009 and 39 of 2009 is set aside and the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patan dated 16th July, 2009 in Cri. Misc. Application No. 65 of 2009 and Cri. Misc. Application No. 67 of 2009 is confirmed. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J]