1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 129 OF 2010 Raman s/o Bhimraoji Shinde, Age 38 Yrs, Occupation Contractor, Resident of Goyanka Road, Dhamangaon Railway, Taluka Dhamangaon Railway, District Amravati Petitioner V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Officer incharge of Tophkhana Police Station, Ahmednagar. 2. H.D.F.C. Bank, Railway Station Branch, Ahmednagar Respondents Mr. A.M. Gholap, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. D.R. Korde, A.P.P. for the respondent / State Respondent No. 2 though served, absent CORAM : A.V.NIRGUDE,J. DATED : 7th APRIL, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. This petition is taken up for hearing immediately. 2. This Writ Petition is challenging the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmednagar, rejecting the Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 847 of 2009, filed by the petitioner. The facts leading to the petition, are as under : 3. One Pardeshi took loan from H.D.F.C. Bank to acquire the vehicle in question. Since he had hypothecated the vehicle, there was a 2 clear mention of hypothecation on the registration papers of the vehicle. Pardeshi did not repay the loan, but it is alleged that he forged registration papers of the vehicle to show that there was no encumbrances of the hypothecation on the vehicle. On utilizing such forged document, Pardeshi sold the vehicle to one Chavan on 18th April, 2009. The present petitioner, thereafter, purchased the vehicle in May, 2009 from Chavan. On 15th June, 2009, officer of the Bank filed a complaint to the police against Pardeshi. During the investigation, the vehicle in question was seized from the petitioner on 9th December, 2009. The petitioner moved his application under Section 457 of Code of Criminal Procedure for return of the vehicle to him on usual terms. Similar application was moved also by the Bank, and the learned Magistrate rejected both the applications. He held that since the title of the petitioner is doubtful, he would not release the vehicle to him. The petitioner challenged this order before the Sessions Court, but did not make the Bank a party to such revision application. The learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the revision mainly on the ground that the petitioner had not made the bank a party to the revision. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also held that since the petitioner is claiming the vehicle on the basis of a document, which is based on a forged document, he would not be entitled to a favourable order. 4. The question is, whether the orders passed by the Courts below are lawful ? It is common ground that after the offence was registered, the vehicle was found in possession of the petitioner. It was seized from his custody. The second and more important aspect of the 3 case is, that the petitioner had purchased the vehicle on the basis of certain document, which even the R.T.O. believed. Te petitioner prima facie appears to be a bonafide purchaser of the vehicle. The Courts below ignored this aspect of the case. The third and equally important circumstance in favour of the petitioner is, that keeping the vehicle in locked and unused, would deteriorate its condition, which is not in the interest of even the bank. Despite of notice given to the bank, they chose not to contest the present petition. The petitioner should therefore succeed to get the vehicle in his custody on usual terms of Supurdnama etc. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the bank, besides filing the criminal case, has ample opportunity to get the vehicle in their custody by filing appropriate civil proceedings against all the concerned parties including the petitioner. Hence order : O R D E R 1] Petition is allowed. 2] The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmednagar shall handover the vehicle in question to the petitioner, on his executing Supurdnama, to his satisfaction. Rule made absolute. DT: 07.04.2010 [A.V.NIRGUDE] JUDGE srm/criwp/129/10