1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITON NO.650 OF 2011 Mr.Sanjay Chandrakant Panchal .. Petitioner V/s The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.A.M.Saraogi with Mr.P.R.Tiwari & Mr.Anand Mishra for the petitioner. Mrs.U.V.Kejriwal, APP for the State-Respondent No.1. Mr.Shahid Irfan for Respondent No.2. CORAM: R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE: 13th October, 2011. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr.A.M.Saraogi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs.Usha Kejriwal, learned APP for the State-Respondent No.1 and Mr.Shahid Irfan, learned counsel for Respondent No.2. 2. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 05.02.2011 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Vadgaon Maval, below Exhibit 1 in the Misc.Criminal Application No.262 of 2010 whereby the application made by the petitioner for return of Pajaro Car bearing Registration No.MH-12-DY-7773 to him was rejected. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 2 05.02.2011 passed by the learned J.M.F.C.below Exhibit 1 in the Criminal Misc.Application No.9 of 2011. By that order the learned Magistrate allowed the application made by the Respondent No.2 for return of the said vehicle, subject to the Respondent No.2 executing a bond of Rs.10 lakhs and further subject to the condition that he shall not sell, pledge, dispose of or create any interest of any other person in respect of the said vehicle and he shall produce the said vehicle in Court as and when directed by the Court. Respondent No.2 was further directed to inform the Court in case he makes any changes in the said vehicle. 3. In support of this petition, Mr.Saraogi contended that the said vehicle was originally belonging to one Mr.Kishore B.Patil, and the petitioner purchased it from Kishore B.Patil in August, 2008. Mr.Kishore Patil handed over the original R.C.Book as also signed Form No.28 signifying his no objection for transferring the said vehicle. The petitioner agreed to sell the said vehicle to Respondent No.2 and to that effect agreement of sale was executed on 25.03.2009. Pursuant to that agreement he also handed over the physical possession of the said vehicle to 3 Respondent No.2. Mr.Saraogi contended that the Respondent No. 2 failed to make full payment. However, in the meantime, the said vehicle was stolen on 13.06.2009 from the custody of Respondent No.2 and therefore Respondent No.2 lodged F.I.R.on 14.06.2009 under section 379 I.P.C. Vide C.R.No.65 of 2009. 4. Mr.Saraogi contended that the petitioner is the owner of the said vehicle and as the no objection certificate issued by the R.T.O.Thane addressed to the R.T.O.Mumbai stands in his name, and as also he has paid total consideration to the earlier owner, he is entitled to the custody of the said vehicle. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 supported the impugned order. He submitted that the petitioner in Paragraph Nos.4 & 5 of his application had asserted that he had sold the said vehicle to Respondent No.2 and handed over physical possession to him. While it was in the custody of Respondent No.2, the said vehicle was stolen on 13.06.2009. He had lodged F.I.R.on 14.06.2009. He also submitted that while allowing the Respondent No.2’s application, the learned Magistrate has protected the interest of the petitioner and therefore no interference is called for in the impugned order. 4 6. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties. It is not in dispute that Mr.Kishore B.Patil was the original owner of the said vehicle and he sold the said vehicle to the petitioner. He also signed Form No.28 signifying his no objection for transferring of the said vehicle. It is also not in dispute that subsequently the petitioner sold the said vehicle to Respondent No.2 on 25.03.2009 and also handed over physical custody of the said vehicle to Respondent No.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the Respondent No.2 has not paid the entire consideration. While rejecting the application, the learned Magistrate has observed that the petitioner may adopt appropriate civil remedy. Learned Magistrate observed that once the petitioner having transferred interest in the said vehicle to Respondent No.2, the petitioner was not entitled to get possession of the said vehicle. 7. In so far as application made by Respondent No.2 is concerned, the learned Magistrate has allowed the same, subject to imposing the condition more particularly extracted herein-above. The learned counsel for Respondent No.2 made a statement that he has complied the said condition. In the light of this position, I am 5 clearly of the opinion that the learned Magistrate has protected the interest of the petitioner while permitting Respondent No.2 to take custody of the vehicle. In view thereof, no interference is called for. Petition fails and the same is rejected. (R.G.KETKAR, J.)