1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2415/2008 Shyam Bihari vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order: 20.1.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BHANWAROO KHAN Mr. Ashwani Sharma for the petitioner Miss. Manju Dave, P.P. The petitioner Shyam Bihari has filed the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 1.11.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bharatpur whereby criminal revision No.168/20089 filed by the petitioner against the order dated 13.10.2008 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Bharatpur has been dismissed and the order of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate has been maintained. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner took a loan from respondent nos. 2 to 4 for purchase of vehicle on hypothetication basis but he failed to deposit the monthly installments. The respondents took away the vehicle as the petitioner could pay the due amount of loan. The 2 petitioner then filed a case against the respondents and claimed for the vehicle. The trial court by the order dated 13.10.2008 ordered for the release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner subjected to the condition on furnishing receipt in the court regarding payment of the due amount of the installments. Being aggrieved of the condition imposed by the trial court for release of the vehicle, the petitioner filed a revision before the revisional court and the learned revisional court by the order dated 1.11.2008, upholding the order of the trial court has dismissed the revision petition by order dated 13.10.2008. Hence, this petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned P.P. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is not possible for the petitioner to pay the entire amount of the due installments and thus, the condition imposed by the trial court amounts to an abuse of process of the law. The petitioner being a poor man it is not possible for him to pay the total amount of due installments in one time and thus, the trial court should have ordered to pay the due amount in installments. In the facts and circumstances of the case the 3 arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not sustainable. The trial court ordered to release the vehicle in the name of the petitioner protecting the interest of the firm which advanced loan to the petitioner for purchasing the vehicle and the vehicle was hypotheticated with the firm. As the petitioner failed to pay the installments, it cannot be done that the petitioner be allowed to remain in possession of the vehicle so as to allow him not to pay the due amount against him. There is no illegality in the orders passed by the courts below as the same are justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, no interference is required to be called for in the orders passed by the courts below by this Court in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In the result, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has no merit and the same is, hereby, dismissed. BHANWAROO KHAN,J. bairwa