The registered owner's rights prevail in custody disputes, even amidst allegations of fraud, as payment installments and vehicle registration establish legitimate ownership.

M.M. NERLIKAR, J.

Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and by consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

2. This Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the common order dated 30.08.2022 passed below Exh.No.1 in Misc. Criminal Application Nos.64/2022 and 73/2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.9 Amravati, and order passed on 06.03.2024 in Criminal Revision No.105/2022 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati, whereby the custody of vehicle i.e. Bolero Pick-up bearing registration No. MH 30 BD 0266, was declined to be released on supratnama by both the Courts below in favour of the present petitioner. The petitioner Bank has filed a complaint alleging offence punishable under Sections 420 , 464, 468, 469 read with Section 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . Pursuant to the said complaint, an order under Section 156[3] of the Code of Criminal Procedure was passed and the Court directed to register the crime against one Ravi Dange. Accordingly, Rajapeth Police Station registered Crime No.1449/2021. It is alleged by the petitioner that Ravi Dange [respondent no.3] purchased a vehicle and the petitioner Bank has provided finance for the same. Hypothication agreement was executed between them, however, without repayment of the said loan, respondent no.3 by using forged documents sold the said vehicle to respondent no.2. Based on these allegations, an investigation was carried out and the police seized the vehicle from respondent no.2. An application bearing No.64/2022 was moved by the respondent no.2 seeking interim custody of the seized vehicle. Another application bearing No.73/2022 was filed by the petitioner herein also seeking interim custody. Both these applications are filed under Section 454 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. Upon hearing the parties, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.9 was pleased to reject the said application of the petitioner- Bank by passing common order below Exh.1 in Misc. Criminal Application Nos.64 and 73 of 2022 on 30.08.2022, and the application filed by the respondent no.2 seeking interim custody was allowed. This order dated 30.08.2022 was challenged by the petitioner by filing Criminal Revision No.105/2022. The said revision was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati on 06.03.2024. Both these orders are subject matter of challenge in this petition at the instance of petitioner Bank.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Though respondent no.3 is served, he has chosen not to appear. It appears from the record that, the petitioner Bank advanced a loan to respondent no.3 for purchase of the vehicle. It further appears that the said vehicle was sold by respondent no.3 to respondent no.2, and the said vehicle was registered in the name of respondent no.2. it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the transfer of the vehicle was effected on the basis of forged and fabricated documents, and in that regard the petitioner had already lodged the first information report with the police. He further submits that Form no.35 and No Objection Certificate are forged by respondent no.3 and on the basis of these forged documents, transfer has been effected, and till repayment of the loan amount, the Bank is having ownership rights over the said vehicle. My attention is invited to the contents of first information report which is lodged by the Bank against respondent no.3. He further submits that it has become a modus operandi of the hirers, that by preparing forged documents, the vehicles are being so