[2026:RJ-JP:28031] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 8594/2022 URN: CRLMP / 14872U / 2022 Hemraj S/o Bhanwarlal, R/o Jebadiya, P.S. Baroni, Distt. Tonk (Raj.) ----Accused-Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through P.P. 2. Kajod S/o Ramlal, R/o Jebadiya, Tehsil Piplu, Distt. Tonk (Raj.) ----Complainant-Respondents Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7627/2022 URN: CRLMP / 13123U / 2022 Kajod S/o Ramlal, R/o Jebadiya, Tehsil Piplu, District Tonk, Raj. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through PP 2. Hemraj S/o Bhanwar Lal, R/o Jebadiya, P.S. Baroni, District Tonk. (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Praveen Kumar Jain (In Crl.M.P.No.8594/2022) Mr.Atul Kumar Jain (In Crl.M.P.No.7627/2022) For Respondent(s) : Mr.Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP Mr.Praveen Kumar Jain (In Crl.M.P.No.7627/2022) JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 21/07/2026 1. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in these petitions and common orders are under challenge, hence, [2026:RJ-JP:28031] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-8594/2022] with the consent of counsel for the parties, both these petitions are decided by this common order. 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned order dated 30.04.2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Newai, District Tonk in the F.I.R. No.381/2021 registered at the Police Station Baroni, District Tonk for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 308 & 34 IPC, a revision petition was submitted by both the petitioners before the Court of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Newai, District Tonk, however, the same was rejected vide impugned order dated 17.06.2022. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, these petitions have been submitted. 3. During the course of investigation of the F.I.R. No.381/2021, a tractor bearing registration No.RJ 26 RB 6677 was seized by the Police, a trolley was attached along-with the said truck, hence, the petitioner-Kajod submitted an application under Section 451/457 Cr.P.C. for release of the same, claiming himself as the registered owner of the subject vehicle, the application submitted by the petitioner-Kajod was allowed and a direction was issued for supurdagi of both the subject vehicles, i.e., truck and trolley to him. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the petitioner-Hemraj submitted a revision petition before the Revisional Court claiming himself as a registered owner of the trolley. The learned Revisional Court remitted the matter to the learned Magistrate for its disposal afresh. 5. In pursuance of the remand order, the matter came before the Magistrate, where both the parties submitted their rival [2026:RJ-JP:28031] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-8594/2022] claims, claiming themselves as the registered owner of the trolley in question, however, in stead of deciding the claim raised by both the sides, the learned Magistrate passed a direction to retain the subject trolley at the Police Station, by passing the order impugned dated 30.04.2022. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, both the petitioners approached the Revisional Court by way of filing two different revision petitions, and the same were dismissed by the Revisional Court and a direction was issued to the learned Magistrate for holding an inquiry with regard to the right and title of both the parties over the trolley in question. 7. Various version and cross-versions have been made by the rival sides for claiming their right and title over the subject trolley, both the petitioners are submitting various documents with regard to the purchase of the said trolley at their instance. 8. Section 451 Cr.P.C. deals with such like situation, it says that when any property is produced before any Criminal Court during any inquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for proper custody of such property, pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court may, after recording such evidence, as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of. 9. In the instant case, a serious dispute with regard to the ownership over the subject trolley has been raised by both the sides, on the basis of their rival claims and submissions led by the evidence on record. The disputed questions of facts cannot be [2026:RJ-JP:28031] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-8594/2022] adjudicated and examined by this Court, while exercising its powers contained under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 10. This Court is of the considered opinion that the Revisional Court has not committed any error by issuing directions to the learned Magistrate to hold an inquiry and after recording the evidence led by both the sides, pass appropriate orders for release/custody of the trolley in question. 11. This Court finds no error in the order impugned passed by the Revisional Court, which warrants any interference of this Court. Accordingly, the instant petitions stand disposed of, by issuing directions to the learned Magistrate to conduct an inquiry and record the evidence of both the sides and pass fresh orders for releasing of the said trolley on supurdagi. 12. Needless to observe that all possible endeavours would be made by the learned Magistrate to conduct the inquiry and pass fresh orders expeditiously, as early as possible, preferably within a period of four month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 13. Till disposal of the applications submitted by both the sides, interim order passed by this Court in favour of the petitioner- Kajod shall remain in currency. 14. Accordingly, both the instant petitions stand disposed of. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma/48-49