- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 903 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 283 OF 2023 NILESH PRATAP MORE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS Mr.H.H.Padalkar, Advocate for the Applicant. Mrs.B.B.Gunjal, APP for the Respondent/State. Mr.Shaikh Wajid, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Mr.A.V.Mundada, Advocate for Respondent No.3. ( CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. ) DATE : 30th SEPTEMBER, 2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and the learned APP. 2. This is Criminal Revision Application challenging the impugned order dated 30.08.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Basmat Dist.Hingoli, below Exhibits 47 and 74 in Sessions Case No.14/2023, thereby rejecting the application Exh.74 of the Applicant for return of property u/s 457 of the Cr.P.C and allowing the application Exh.47 filed by respondent No.2/ accused No.7 and handing over khs/Sept.2026/283 2026:BHC-AUG:47852 - 2 - custody of vehicle to accused No.7. 3. The learned Sessions Judge, vide the impugned order, rejected the application preferred by the Applicant for returning the property u/s 457 of the Cr.P.C. The Applicant is, therefore, seeking custody of the said sealed property. Hence the instant Revision Application. 4. The property, which is sought to be released, is a Mahindra and Mahindra XUV 700 vehicle which came to be seized by the Police in Crime No.29/2023. The said vehicle came to be seized from one Jaykant Parmeshwar Jangid i.e. brother of respondent No.2. The said crime was registered by Aundha Police Station. The vehicle in question came to be seized on 08.02.2023, by the Investigating Officer on the basis of the statement recorded of Jaykant Parmeshwar Jangid. In the said statement, Jaykant also stated that the vehicle is belonging to one Nilesh More i.e. the present Applicant. On the basis of aforesaid statement, the Investigating Officer sent notice to Jaykant Jangid to bring the vehicle at Aundha Police Station. Accordingly, Jaykant Parmeshwar brought the vehicle on 08.02.2023 in Aundha Police khs/Sept.2026/283 - 3 - Station. 5. Accordingly, the notice was sent to the Applicant Nilesh More. He appeared and filed his say at Exh.73 stating therein that he had no acquaintance with respondent No./2 Accused No.7 and never gave the vehicle to him. Accused No.7 i.e. respondent No.2 also filed an application before the leaned Sessions Court u/s 457 of the Cr.P.C., for releasing the said vehicle. Accordingly, the notice came to be issued to the present Applicant Nilesh being the registered owner of the said vehicle. The learned Sessions Judge, vide impugned order dated 30.08.2023, pleased to grant custody of the vehicle to accused No.7/ Respondent No.2 on executing Supurtnama of Rs.5,00,000/-. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Applicant has approached this Court by filing the present Revision Application. 6. The learned Advocate for the Applicant submits that it is admitted fact that the Applicant is the registered owner of the vehicle, who has purchased the vehicle by availing loan facility from Respondent No.3 and thus, the said vehicle is hypothecated with Respondent No.3 / Finance Company. Respondent No.2, according to khs/Sept.2026/283 - 4 - him, is relying upon one fabricated agreement dated 20.04.2022 claiming to be the owner of the said vehicle on the ground that the Applicant has allegedly sold the vehicle to him. He submits that the said agreement is totally a false document and cannot be acted upon. He has taken this Court to the recitals of the said agreement and pointed out that not only the photograph, but the signature appeared on the said document, are forged. He submits that on the basis of said agreement, Respondent No.2 cannot be considered to be the owner of the vehicle in question. He further submits that as on date, even the Transport Authorities’ entries are also standing in his favour and as such, he is entitled for the custody of the seized vehicle in his favour. Thus, in short, he denies the aforesaid agreement dated 20.04.2022 and also denies the contention that he has ever received the cash of Rs.2,00,000/-. 7. Upon specific query by the Court to the learned Advocate for the Applicant as regards, as to how Accused No.7 i.e. respondent No.2 herein came into possession of this vehicle, he submits that the vehicle in question was handed over to one Sarala Bokefode and he was under bonafide impression that the said vehicle was in her possession khs/Sept.2026/283 - 5 - and therefore, he was not aware that the said vehicle was involved in crime and he has never handed the vehicle to Accused No.7. He, therefore, submits that the learned Sessions Court, by handing over the custody of the vehicle to accused No.7, has committed grave error in the eyes of Law and hence, the impugned order be quashed and set aside and he be handed over the custody of the vehicle. 8. Per contra, the learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 / Accused No.7 strongly opposed the instant Revision Application. According to him, the order passed by the learned Sessions Court is correct and proper in the sense that the vehicle at the time of incident in question was found to be in the possession of Accused No.7. He further submits that under the provisions of Section 457 of the Cr.P.C., the Court on making an application for releasing the property on Supurtnama, is required to see as to who is possessing the seized property at the relevant time and therefore, according to him, the learned Sessions Court while granting custody to him, has committed no error. He further submits that the Applicant has sold the said vehicle vide Agreement dated 20.04.2022 to Accused No.7. After transferring the said vehicle to Accused No.7, the Applicant cannot claim any right khs/Sept.2026/283 - 6 - over the said property and as such, he is entitled for the custody of the vehicle. He also submits that the applicant though was not having possession of this vehicle property, still he has not lodged any complaint before the Police for almost one and half years. The conduct of the Applicant is, therefore, doubtful and he being not related person and therefore, has not approached with clean hands. Thus, the applicant is not entitled to have the custody of the vehicle. The learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 has specifically relied upon Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. to claim that he is entitled to claim possession of the vehicle. 9. In support of his submission, the learned advocate for respondent No.2, relies upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Julio @ Francis K.Budge Vs.State [2007 All M.R. (Cri.) 1069]. He submits that in identical situation, the Court has considered this aspect and has not handed over the property to the registered owner of the vehicle. He, therefore, submits that the instant Revision Application be rejected. 10. The learned APP has relied upon the affidavit filed by the Police Inspector, Aundha Police Station, Dist.Hingoli. She has invited khs/Sept.2026/283 - 7 - attention of this Court to paragraph Nos. 6 and 7 of the said affidavit to contend that the agreement sought to be relied upon by Accused No.2 and sought to be denied by the Applicant, is a matter of trial and cannot be considered for deciding the issue raised under the provisions of Section 457 of the Cr.P.C.. The learned APP, therefore, prayed for passing the appropriate order. 11. The learned Advocate for Respondent No.3 states that as on date, total amount of Rs.3,33,445/- is outstanding and have not been paid by the Applicant. 12. After hearing the learned Advocates for the respective parties and on going through the record and proceedings before the Court, it is found that at the time of commission of crime, the vehicle in question was used by Respondent No.2 and the same came to be seized by the Investigating Officer on 08.02.2023 for the purpose of investigation. After the investigation, charge sheet is filed . The crime in question is of the year 2023 and though the charge sheet is filed, the vehicle, which is seized in the crime, is still lying with the Police Station. Admittedly, Respondent No.2 was having possession at the khs/Sept.2026/283 - 8 - time of incident in question, however, it is also an admitted fact that he is not the registered owner of the vehicle. The vehicle in question is hypothecated with Respondent No.3 / Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. Respondent No.2 / Accused No.7, if at all wants to rely upon and act upon the agreement sought to be executed between the parties, he will have to prove the agreement. However, as on date, the Applicant is found to be the registered owner of the vehicle, there is no difficulty in allowing him to have custody of the said vehicle but subject to very strict conditions. If such an application is filed, the possession of the vehicle is required to be handed over in favour of the person, who is entitled for the possession. 13. Though the learned advocate for respondent No.2 has relied upon Section 457 to claim possession of the vehicle, however, on bare perusal of Section 457, it is clear that the Magistrate may pass such order delivering such property to “the person entitled to the possession thereof”. Sub Section (2) of Section 457 further states that if the person so entitled is “known”, the Magistrate may order to deliver such property to him. Thus, Section 457 reveals that the property to be handed over to the known person entitled to the possession. In this khs/Sept.2026/283 - 9 - case, admittedly the vehicle is registered in the name of the Applicant and there is outstanding of the loan in his name. However, respondent No.2 is claiming possession of the vehicle on the basis of the agreement, which is disputed by the applicant. 14. The judgment in Julio alias Francis K. Bugde Vs. State and Another, reported in 2007 ALL MR (Cri) 1069, relied upon by learned Advocate for Respondent No.2, is distinguishable on facts. In the said case, the claim of the person seeking interim custody was supported by material demonstrating payment of the sale consideration and possession of the registration certificate, and the version of the registered owner was not satisfactorily substantiated. In the present case, however, the Applicant has specifically disputed the alleged agreement dated 20.04.2022, including its genuineness, and the claim of Respondent No.2 based thereon has yet to be established. Further, the vehicle admittedly continues to stand registered in the name of the Applicant and is hypothecated with Respondent No.3/Finance Company. Therefore, the principle applied in the aforesaid judgment, on the facts obtaining therein, cannot be mechanically applied to the present case so as to confer interim custody upon Respondent No.2 khs/Sept.2026/283 - 10 - merely on the basis of his possession at the time of the incident. The said judgment, therefore, does not advance the case of Respondent No.2 in the facts and circumstances of the present matter. 15. In view of the above discussion, the Applicant alone is the known person to be entitled for possession as per Section 457 and Respondent No.2 is not entitled for possession of the vehicle in question. However, the learned Sessions Judge has committed an error while passing the impugned order. The impugned order needs to be quashed and set aside. Hence, the following order :- ORDER [a] Criminal Revision Application is allowed and the impugned order dated 30.08.2023 is quashed and set aside. [b] The vehicle MH-15/DM-4993, seized in Crime No.29/2023, be handed over in the custody of the Applicant Nilesh Pratap More on executing Supurtnama of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs. Five Lac only). [c] The Applicant shall not sell or transfer the vehicle till disposal of Session Case No.14/2023, pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Basmath, Dist.Hingoli. [d] On expiry of the insurance policy, he shall get the vehicle insured. khs/Sept.2026/283 - 11 - [e] The Applicant shall produce the vehicle as and when ordered by this Court. [f] He shall not use the vehicle in commission of crime and shall not make any structural changes in the design and nature of the vehicle. ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.) khs/Sept.2026/283