V. B. GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THE present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr. P. C. , seeking quashing of the order dated 13th april, 2007 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate and seeking direction to the SHO police Station, Timarpur, Delhi to take custody of Maruti Van bearing no. DL-6c-E-6319 from the respondents no. 1 and 2 and handover the same to the petitioner. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case are that on 17th September, 2006, a robbery was committed in the factory of the petitioner. During investigation respondent no. 2 was arrested, and in pursuance of his disclosure statement, Maruti Van was recovered from his possession. During pendency of the investigation, vide impugned order, the learned MM released the Maruti Van in favour of respondent no. 1. ( 3 ) IT is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is illegal, since the Maruti Van was purchased by respondent no. 1 after the commission of the robbery in the factory of the petitioner and sale consideration of Rs. 85,000/- of the Maruti Van was paid by respondent no. 2 from the looted money and he has accepted this fact in his confessional statement and as such respondent no. 1 was not the bona-fide purchaser, so impugned order passed by the Magistrate be set aside and in support of his contentions learned counsel for the petitioner cited a case reported as Ashok Kumar. v. State, 26 (1984) Delhi Law Times, 82. ( 4 ) PRIMA-FACIE, there is nothing on record to show that present Maruti Van in question has been purchased by respondent no. 1 out of money, which was stolen from the factory of the petitioner, except for the confessional statement of respondent no. 2. It has been observed by the learned Magistrate that the recovered money cannot be ascribed to the stolen money because the complainant i. e. the present petitioner, has nowhere given the description of the stolen money. ( 5 ) MARUTI Van in question is registered in the name of respondent no. 1 and as per impugned order, the petitioner is neither the registered owner nor the rightful owner of the Maruti Van and the Maruti Van has been rightly, ordered to be released on the superdari by the trial court to its registered owner. ( 5 ) MARUTI Van in question is registered in the name of respondent no. 1 and as per impugned order, the petitioner is neither the registered owner nor the rightful owner of the Maruti Van and the Maruti Van has been rightly, ordered to be released on the superdari by the trial court to its registered owner. The case law cited is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Hence, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned magistrate in releasing the Maruti Van to the registered owner. ( 6 ) HENCE, the present petition is not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed.