16-APL-897-2025.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.897 OF 2025 Ramesh K. Karangia …Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. …Respondents Mr. V. R. Tiwari a/w. Mr. A. K. Mishra and Mr. Arif Shaikh, for the Applicant. Mr. S. V. Walve, APP, for Respondent No.1-State. Ms. Kajal Pansare, PSI (Pairavi) attached to Azad Maidan Police Station, Mumbai, present. CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED : 1st SEPTEMBER 2026 PC:- 1. Heard Mr. Tiwari, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant and Mr. Walve, learned APP appearing for Respondent No.1-State. 2. Despite service of notice, none appears for Respondent No.2. 3. Mr. Walve, learned APP states that in fact, yesterday also the Respondent No.2 was informed about this matter by the Investigating Officer, however, none appears for the Respondent No.2. Page 1 Sonali 16-APL-897-2025.DOC 4. By this Criminal Application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the challenge is to the legality and validity of the common order dated 3rd January 2024 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 64th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, below Applications of Return of Property in C.C. No.1392/Misc/2022 and C.C. No.1198/Misc/2022 of Azad Maidan Police Station, Mumbai. By the impugned order dated 3rd January 2024, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate rejected both the Applications filed by the Applicant and Respondent No.2 respectively for return of the property i.e. the white coloured Range Rover Car bearing Registration No.MH05-CK-0020, Chassis No.SALVA2AD7FL920319, Engine No.D2784209878224DT. At this stage only it is relevant to note that although the learned Metropolitan Magistrate rejected the Application filed by the Respondent No.2 for return of the property, however, Respondent No.2 has not challenged the said order and accepted the said order. As far as the present Applicant is concerned, the Applicant has challenged the said order dated 3rd January 2024 by filing Criminal Revision Application No.222 of 2024 in the Sessions Court. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 87th Court at Page 2 Sonali 16-APL-897-2025.DOC Mazgaon, Mumbai dismissed the said Revision Application on the ground that the same is not maintainable. 5. It is the submission of Mr. Tiwari, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant that the First Informant i.e. Respondent No.2 filed C.R. No.18 of 2022 on 24th February 2022 with the Azad Maidan Police Station, Mumbai under Sections 406, 420, 464, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on behalf of her brother and thereafter, the chargesheet has been filed against the accused-Arjun Raj and Scuderia Private Limited Company. It is submitted that the brother of the Respondent No.2 wanted to purchase Mercedes-Maybach Car and the accused assured that although the market price of the said Mercedes-Maybach Car is Rs.2,10,00,000/-, the same would be made available to the brother of the Respondent No.2 at the rate of Rs.1,65,00,000/-. The brother of the Respondent No.2 accordingly, transacted with the accused and handed over to the accused his BMW 7 Series car and Range Rover Car i.e. the subject car/property. The accused informed the brother of the Respondent No.2 that both these cars are sold for an aggregate amount of Rs.51,50,000/-. In addition to the said purchase amount the brother of the Respondent No.2 paid Page 3 Sonali 16-APL-897-2025.DOC Rs.13,50,000/- by RTGS to the Accussed and balance payment was to be paid by availing bank loan. However, inspite of number of reminders, the accused-Arjun Raj gave evasive replies and therefore, information was sought from the main dealer at Delhi and it was found that Tax Invoice and other documents which were provided by the accused-Arjun Raj with respect to said Mercedes- Maybach Car are forged documents. 6. However, Mr. Tiwari, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant submitted that as far as the Applicant is concerned, the Applicant has purchased the subject car from Agent of accused Arjun Raj and valuable consideration of Rs.28,60,000/- was paid. He submitted that in fact, for that purpose, loan was availed from the ICICI Bank and Rs.15,00,000/- were paid. He relied on a photocopy of the Registration Certificate (“RC”) Book, which is at page 217 of the Writ Petition, wherein the name of the Applicant is mentioned as registered owner of the car. He has also pointed out the papers which are annexed to the Petition from pages 181 to 221 showing the papers concerning the loan taken from the ICICI Bank, papers showing the repayment of the said loan and papers showing the transfer in the Applicant’s name. He therefore, Page 4 Sonali 16-APL-897-2025.DOC submitted that the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside. He has also pointed out the No Objection given by the police for the return of the property to the Applicant (Page 215 to 216). 7. Mr. Walve, learned APP submitted that the order in accordance with law be passed. 8. Perusal of the record shows that it is true that accused-Arjun Raj has assured the brother of the Respondent No.2 at whose instance, the FIR has been lodged that Mercedes-Maybach Car which was available in the market for Rs.2,10,00,000/- would be made available to the Respondent No.2’s brother only at the rate of Rs.1,65,00,000/- and for making the said payment, the Respondent No.2’s brother has sold his two cars through said Arjun Raj. One of the said two cars, i.e. the subject car has been purchased by the Applicant for valuable consideration by availing loan from the ICICI Bank. In fact, the Applicant is a registered owner as per RC Book. Page 5 Sonali 16-APL-897-2025.DOC 9. It is required to be noted that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has rejected the Application of the Applicant as also the Applicantion of the Respondent No.2 (First Informant) by observing that there is a dispute regarding ownership. However, as per the prosecution case as reflected in the FIR and the chargesheet admittedly, the brother of the Respondent No.2 has handed over two cars including the subject car to accused -Arjun Raj for selling the same to the propspective purchasers and accordingly, the subject car has been purchased by the Applicant. The said accused -Arjun Raj has cheated the brother of the Respondent No.2 is another aspect of the matter. However, it is clear that the Applicatnt has purchased the said car. It is an admitted position that the said car has been handed over to the investigating machinery by the Applicant on 20th April 2023. Thus, as a result of the impugned order, the car is standing in the Police Station for last three years. The Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat1 has observed as under: 1 (2002) 10 SCC 283 Page 6 Sonali 16-APL-897-2025.DOC “15. Learned Senior Counsel Mr Dholakia, appearing for the State of Gujarat further submitted that at present in the police station premises, a number of vehicles are kept unattended and vehicles become junk day by day. It is his contention that appropriate directions should be given to the Magistrates who are dealing with such questions to hand over such vehicles to their owners or to the person from whom the said vehicles are seized by taking appropriate bond and guarantee for the return of the said vehicles if required by the court at any point of time. 16. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that this question of handing over the vehicle to the person from whom it is seized or to its true owner is always a matter of litigation and a lot of arguments are advanced by the persons concerned. 17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles. 18. In case where the vehicle is not claimed by the accused, owner, or the insurance company or by a third person, then such vehicle may be ordered to be auctioned by the court. If the said vehicle is insured with the insurance company then the insurance company be informed by the court to take possession of the vehicle which is Page 7 Sonali 16-APL-897-2025.DOC not claimed by the owner or a third person. If the insurance company fails to take possession, the vehicles may be sold as per the direction of the court. The court would pass such order within a period of six months from the date of production of the said vehicle before the court. In any case, before handing over possession of such vehicles, appropriate photographs of the said vehicle should be taken and detailed panchnama should be prepared.” (Emphasis added) 10. As noted hereinabove, as a result of the impugned order, the subject car is in Police Station for last about 3 years. Accordingly, by imposing conditions, there is no impediment in returning the property to the Applicant. 11. The Criminal Application is disposed of by passing the following order: ORDER (a) The common order dated 3rd January 2024 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 64th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, passed below Applications for Return of Property in C.C. No.1392/Misc/2022 and Page 8 Sonali 16-APL-897-2025.DOC C.C. No.1198/Misc/2022 of Azad Maidan Police Station, Mumbai, is quashed and set aside. (b) The said Range Rover Car, bearing Registration No.MH05-CK-0020, Chassis No.SALVA2AD7FL920319 and Engine No.D2784209878224DT be returned to the Applicant on the following terms and conditions:- (i) The Applicant shall not create any third- party interest with respect to the subject car till disposal of the said criminal cases. (ii) The Applicant shall make the said car available for further investigation, if required by the Police and also as and when directed by the Court. (iii) The Applicant shall file undertaking to the above effect within 15 days in this court and before the learned trial court also bond and security be given in terms of the law laid down by the supreme court in the case of Page 9 Sonali 16-APL-897-2025.DOC Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court and thereafter the said vehicle be returned to the Applicant. 12. The Criminal Application is disposed of in above terms with no order as to costs. [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.] Page 10 Sonali SONALI MILIND PATIL Digitally signed by SONALI MILIND PATIL Date: 2026.09.02 15:08:24 +0530