Ajit Borthakur, J.

1. By this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has sought for setting aside and quashing the order, dated 10.08.2016, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Goalpara in Crl. Rev. No. 33/2016 and order, dated 09.06.2016, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Goalpara in connection with Mornoi P.S. Case No. 105/2016 under Section 420/406 IPC whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Goalpara dismissed the said revision petition.

2. The petitioner's case, in a nutshell, is that the petitioner is a private limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and the respondent No. 2 is a proprietorship firm and service provider dealing with supply of heavy duty cranes. The petitioner-company took one crane, bearing registration No. NL-01G-3920, by executing an agreement for sale, dated 01.07.2014 with the respondent No. 2 for Rs. 72,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Two Lakhs) and paid Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) by cheque as advance. Subsequently, dispute arose between the parties for respondent No. 2's failure to comply with the terms of the said sale agreement and therefore, the petitioner filed an application on 30.05.2016 under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Court of the District Judge, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati, which was registered as Misc. Arbitration Case No. 19/2016, with a prayer for passing an appropriate temporary injunction restraining the respondent No. 2 from forcibly taking away the crane till settlement of the dispute. The learned Addl. District Judge No. 1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati passed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction on 01.06.2016 till the next date fixed in the aforesaid proceeding.

3. During the pendency of the aforesaid arbitration proceeding, the respondent No. 2 filed an FIR, on 01.06.2016, at Mornoi Police Station, whereupon Mornoi P.S. Case No. 105/2016 under Section 406/420 IPC was registered and seized the crane of the petitioner, inspite of being informed about the interim order, dated 01.06.2016, passed in Misc. Arb. Case No. 19/2016. Therefore, on 02.06.2016, the petitioner filed an application, under Section 451 Cr.P.C., in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Goalpara seeking interim custody of the crane and likewise, on its following day, that is, on 03.06.2002, the respondent No. 3, the brother of the respondent No. 2, also filed another application, under Section 451 Cr.P.C., claiming, inter-alia, the interim custody of the crane and further, the respondent No. 3 filed objection against the aforesaid prayer of the petitioner. Thereafter, despite allegedly having knowledge about the pendency of the arbitration proceeding in respect of the dispute, arising out of the said crane, and the interim restraint order, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No. 1, Goalpara, by an order, dated 09.06.2016, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Goalpara decided the zimma of the crane in favour of the respondent No. 3, he being the registered owner. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, the petitioner preferred a criminal revision before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Goalpara, on 10.06.2016, vide Crl. Rev. No.33/2016, which was dismissed on 10.08.2016 holding, inter-alia, that mere pendency of a civil suit or proceeding is not an impediment in granting zimma under Section 451/457 Cr.P.C., and that no revision lies against such interlocutory order. Hence, the instant petition praying for setting aside the aforesaid impugned orders.

4. In the affidavit-in-opposition, the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 have taken the stand that the petitioner company did not pay the sale consideration price of the crane as per the terms of the agreement for sale, but was operating the same at the plant site at Mornoi, Goalpara. They have further contended with reference to clauses 6.1 and 6.2 of the sale agreement that if any dispute or question arises in regard to the sub