DEEPESH BABULAL SETHIA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN both these applications, preliminary point of law regarding maintainability of the applications is being raised by the respondents and the same were heard together on the said point and, therefore, the same are being dealt with by this common Order in both the applications.

(2.) THE preliminary point raised in both the petitions is whether the order passed under section 457 of Cr. P. C. directing temporary custody of the vehicle to a party is an interlocutory order within the meaning of said expression under section 397 of cr. P. C. , or not ?

(3.) THE facts in brief, relevant for the decision, are that the respondent no. 2 is the step mother of the petitioner. The vehicle number MH 20/n-0444 being Zen car, originally belonged to the father of the petitioner. The father of the petitioner expired on 21. 4. 2000 and on his death, the said vehicle came to be transferred in the name of the respondent no. 2 in the Registration Office. On 10. 8. 2000, the respondent no. 2 lodged complaint with the police that the petitioner, in collusion with the R. T. O. and the uncle of the petitioner by name Rajendra, prepared forged documents and thereby, got the said vehicle transferred in his name in the Registration office. On the other hand, it is the case of the petitioner that the transfer was with the consent of the respondent no. 2. The petitioner and his uncle were arrested, but later on released on bail by the learned J. M. F. C. Mean while, the police seized the said vehicle from the custody of the petitioner. Thereafter, two applications came to be filed for the custody of the said vehicle, one by the petitioner and the other by the respondent no. 2. By the impugned common order passed in both the said applications, the trial Court allowed the application filed by the respondent while dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. The contention of the respondent is that the impugned order not being an interlocutory order, the petitioner has alternative. Officacious remedy of Criminal revision Application under section 397 of Cr. P. C. to the Sessions Court and without exhausting the said remedy, there is no case made out for invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court either under section 482 of Cr. P. C. or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The contention is seriously disputed by the learned Advocate for the petitioner. Both the lawyers have cited various decisions in the matter in support of their rival contentions and, they are :