CRL.M.NO.19316-M of 2010(O&M) #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRL.M.NO.19316-M of 2010(O&M) DATE OF ORDER: 9.7.2010 Virinder Kumar .....Petitioner vs. State of UT and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Sandeep Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. JASWANT SINGH, J Crl.M.No.34075 of 2010 Application is allowed as prayed for. Crl.M.No.19316-M of 2010 Prayer in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C is for setting aside order dated 29.1.2010 (P.1) passed by ld. CJM, Chandigarh and the revisional order dated 24.5.2010 (P.2) passed by ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh whereby application of the petitioner for release of Car No.CH03V4459 on superdari have been dismissed. Facts are that the petitioner-Virinder Kumar had purchased a Santro Car bearing No.CH03V4459 and got it financed from ICICI Bank. Due to the petitioner having defaulted in the payment of instalment of loan, the car was forcibly snatched away by the officials of the loanee Bank from CRL.M.NO.19316-M of 2010(O&M) #2# him in the year 2006 and sold to a third person, namely, respondent No.2- Sanjay Verma. Petitioner filed a complaint against the bank officials with regard to stealing of his Santro Car and the same was recovered on the directions of the Court. Thereafter, the petitioner-original owner moved an application for release of the same on superdari. Subsequent registered owner of the same vehicle, namely, Sanjay Verma-respondent No.2 also moved an application for release of the same on superdari to him. Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate vide impugned order dated 29.1.2010 dismissed both the application for such release on the ground that at this stage, the title of the parties was highly disputed and if the vehicle is released to any of the parties, then the prejudice would be caused to the other party. The revisional court further observed that the petitioner-original owner was yet to pay the major portion of the loan, which remained outstanding against him whereas subsequent purchaser-Sanjay Verma purchased the same after paying the full price. Accordingly, the revision petition of the petitioner was also dismissed. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I find no merit in the present petition as ld. Counsel has failed to point out any illegality, which warrants interference in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Dismissed. July 09, 2010 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE