1 14.APL.924-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.924 OF 2011 Mr.Mitul Narendra Patel and others. ..Applicants. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another. ..Respondents. .......... Mr. Ashok Bhatia, Advocate for the Applicants. Mr. H.J. Dedia, A.P.P. for the State. .......... CORAM : A.R. JOSHI, J. DATED : 17TH DECEMBER, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard rival submissions at length on this application preferred by the applicant/husband challenging the order dated 8 th August, 2011 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate Court No.32, Bandra, Mumbai. 2. By the impugned order, application preferred by the present respondent No.2/wife was partly allowed under the provisions of Section 2 14.APL.924-11 451 of Cr.P.C. in the matter of C.R. No.551/2010 registered with Santacruz police station for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 406 r/w. 34 of IPC. The chargesheet is already filed against the present applicant and other three co-accused – his relatives. 3. Though the application for interim custody of the gold ornaments and other articles was preferred by respondent No.2/wife under Section 451 of Cr.P.C., all the articles were not allowed to be given in the custody of respondent No.2/wife. In fact, major chunk of the ornaments and articles were directed to be given to the intervenor i.e. present applicant and his other relatives. The impugned order speaks that some of the articles mentioned in seizure panchnama No.1, and only three articles mainly the gold ornaments mentioned in seizure panchnama No.2 were to be handed over to the then applicant/wife (present respondent No.2) during pendency of the proceedings and on execution of indemnity bond of Rs.5 lacs. Other articles in the said panchanamas were directed to be given in the custody of the intervenor during pendency of the case on execution of indemnity bond of Rs.10 lacs by them. 3 14.APL.924-11 4. Much is argued on behalf of the applicants that trial Court had not taken into account filing of the bills for certain articles which were given in custody of the wife. 5. Considering the scope of Section 451 of Cr.P.C. at that stage it is not necessary to decide the ownership of the articles by asking the parties to lead evidence and to pinpoint the evidence like purchase bill with respect to respective golden ornaments. Moreover, considering the scope of this Court as available under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., in the opinion of this Court, there is nothing to interfere with the interim order passed, which is challenged, regarding temporary custody of the articles on bond. 6. Needless to mention that the respective parties shall obey the said directions given by the learned Magistrate by keeping those articles in the same position and bring them before the Court at the time of trial after they are returned to them on respective bonds, as indicated in the order. 4 14.APL.924-11 7. In view of the above, there is nothing in the present application so as to alter or quash the impugned order. Accordingly, present application is dismissed and accordingly disposed of. (A. R. JOSHI, J.) PPD