1. The revision, under Sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, Cr.P.C.), is filed by the petitioner against the dismissal order, dated 09.05.2014, in Crl.M.P. No.7984 of 2013 in C.C. No.283 of 2013 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madanapalli; on the petition seeking leave of the Court to sell away the vehicle in issue financed by the petitioner company.

2. The 2nd respondent herein filed a report before the Station House Officer, Madanapalli Police Station stating that his vehicle i.e. TATA Eicher bearing No.AP 03 TC 1328 was stolen by his driver, the same was registered in Crime No.111 of 2013, investigated and final report was filed and the learned Magistrate has taken the cognizance of offence. While so, the 2nd respondent de facto complainant filed Crl.M.P. No.4787 of 2013, sought for interim custody of the vehicle. After hearing, the learned Magistrate granted interim custody of the vehicle by order dated 13.08.2013. Thereafter, the revision petitioner herein, who is the financier to the vehicle in issue, filed Crl.M.P. No.7984 of 2013 sought leave of the Court to sell away the vehicle. The learned Magistrate dismissed the said petition by order dated 09.05.2014. Hence the revision against the State represented by the Station House Officer, Madanapalli II town Police Station and Sri D. Prabhakar, who is the borrower of the loan for the vehicle.

3. The grounds in the revision are that the learned Magistrate went wrong in dismissing the petition in not permitting the sale of the seized vehicle of the 2n d respondent, to whom they financed for purchase of the vehicle, covered by hypothecation agreement, contractual terms in specific, even the 2nd respondent - owner of the vehicle admitted the said finance of the amounts from the revision petitioner entity and the vehicle was seized by the said entity for the installments fallen due; that the learned Magistrate ought to have granted permission to bring the vehicle to sell, pursuant to the contractual terms, otherwise the vehicle seized by the financier entity will be without utility and being damaged soon, as such the financier will put to loss, equally to the owner, who is chronic defaulter for payment of the installments, that entitles the financier to bring the property to sale, hence to set aside the dismissal order of the learned Magistrate and accord permission for sale.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterated the said grounds of revision impugning the order, also drawn attention of the Court to the wording of Section 451 Cr.P.C. and placed reliance upon some expressions of the Constitutional Courts in this regard being referred as per the relevancy.

5. Whereas it is the contention of the counsel for the 2nd respondent that the seizure itself is illegal, for which he addressed a letter to the financer with a right to question; that they cannot sell the vehicle; that he is ready to pay installments as addressed by the financier and against the dismissal order of the learned Magistrate, which is within the legal parameters, this Court while sitting in revision no way can interfere and hence to dismiss the revision. Perused the material on record and also heard the learned public prosecutor.

6. Now the points that arise for consideration are,

01. Whether there is any permission of the Court required to the financier, if he got a lien under Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act, 1972 from the terms of the agreement covered by the contractual obligations, to seize the vehicle and to bring it to sale for realization of the installments due, that defalcated, in particular, from the vehicle involved in a criminal case on the report of the owner of the vehicle against his alleged driver while in use of the vehicle has committed theft? If so, the impugned order of the learned Magistrate dismissing the application negating the right for sale is liable to be set aside and with what observation