The petitioner herein claims to be the registered owner of the vehicle No. KL 7 BG 9956. On a complaint made by him, the said vehicle was seized from the possession of the 2nd respondent herein by the police. Accordingly, the police registered a case against the 2nd respondent. The petitioner approached the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pala for interim custody of the vehicle under Section 451 Cr.P.C. He claimed custody on the ground that he is the registered owner of the vehicle. The 2nd respondent entered appearance, and filed objection. He also made a rival claim for custody of the vehicle under Section 451 Cr.P.C. His case is that the vehicle was in fact purchased by him from the registered owner for consideration, and he also made part payment. On the date of sale, all the vehicle documents including the original registration certificate were also handed over to him. Thus, he claims right to posses the vehicle, as the owner in possession, though registration stands in the name of Crl.M.C.. No. 2510/2014 2 the petitioner herein. The learned Magistrate heard both sides in CMP No. 3462/2014 brought by the petitioner herein, and also the other claim made by the 2nd respondent as CMP 4204/2014. The learned Magistrate dismissed the application filed by the petitioner herein, and ordered release of the vehicle to the 2nd respondent, by the common order dated 30.04.2014. The said order is under challenge in this petition brought under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 2. On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the impugned order, I find that decision under Section 451 Cr.P.C. was rightly taken by the learned Magistrate. I make it clear that this decision will not, in any manner, influence the final decision to be taken by the court regarding custody of property under Section 452 Cr.P.C. Consideration for decision under Section 452 Cr.P.C. is entirely different from the consideration under Section 451 Cr.P.C. Now, the court's concern is only interim custody as an interim arrangement. On a perusal of the materials, the trial court found that the vehicle was seized by the police from the possession of the 2nd respondent, and the vehicle documents Crl.M.C.. No. 2510/2014 3 including the original registration certificate were also seized form his possession. Finding a prima facie case in his favour that he purchased the vehicle from the registered owner, and he has been continuing possession as the defacto owner in possession, the learned Magistrate ordered release of the vehicle to him. In the present circumstances, I find no reason to interfere in the order passed by the court below. However, decision will be taken under Section 452 Cr.P.C. finally, at the time of disposal of the main case, as to who exactly is entitled for custody of the vehicle.
In the result, this petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
P. UBAID, JUDGE sd // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE