Mr. Banwari Lal Sharma, J.

The present petition is preferred by the petitioner accused Hoshiyar Singh assailing the impugned order dated 10.02.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khetri in criminal revision petition No. 5/2016 by which learned Revisional Court while dismissing the revision petition affirmed order dated 22.12.2015 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Buhana in criminal case no. 968/2015 (State v. Dharamveer Singh & ors.) (Criminal misc. case no. 628/2015 (FIR No. 184/2015, PS, Buhana, Dist., Jhunjhunu) offences u/s 498-A, 406 and 323 IPC.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 complainant lodged a report at PS, Buhana, Dist., Jhunjhunu on which FIR no. 184/2015 u/s 323, 498-A, 406 IPC was registered. During investigation of said FIR, the vehicle swift desire V.D.I. Car no. HR-34-G-7455 was seized by the Investigating Officer. Two applications for supurdaginama of said car were submitted before learned judicial Magistrate, Buhana. For supurdaginama of the said car one by the petitioner Hoshiyar Singh and another by Respondent no. 1 complainant Smt. Anita, after hearing on both the applications, learned Magistrate vide order dated 22.12.2015 dismissed the application of the present petitioner and allowed the application of respondent no. 1 and ordered to release the said car on supurdaginama in favour of the respondent no. 1 complainant.

3. The said order dated 22.12.2015 was assailed in the revision petition by the petitioner Hoshiyar Singh. The revision petition was again dismissed vide impugned order dated 10.02.2016 (Annex.-3) by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khetri, Rajasthan. Aggrieved by the said orders, petitioner moved this misc. petition before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Mithun Chaturvedi submits that the car in question was purchased from the Army Canteen, Hisar by the petitioner and registration of said car is in the name of present petitioner after getting loan of Rs. 4,50,000/- from the State Bank of India, Branch Mahendragarh, Haryana, therefore, petitioner is owner of the said car and he is entitled to get it on supurdaginama. He submits that Bank statement was also submitted by the petitioner as Annex-1. He submits that as per M.V. Act, petitioner is owner of the said car which is registered in his name and he is only entitled for retaining car other than the registered owner if retains ca: without his consent is an offence. Without considering all these facts, both the courts below wrongly passed the impugned order. Therefore, same may be quashed and application of petitioner may be allowed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on judgment in the case of Smt. Lali Devi & Ors. v. Prabhu Narayan & Ors. reported in 2015(1) WLC (Raj.) 143, HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Kumari Reshma and ors. reported in 2015(1) WLC (SC) Civil 239.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 complainant Shri Sandeep Sharma supported the impugned orders and submitted that Rs. 6,50,000/- were given in cash for purchasing car. Therefore, it is Stridhan belonging to respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 1 is entitled for getting the car on supurdaginama. As enshrined in section 113 of Hindu Law. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon judgment in the case of Bhuvnesh Sharma v. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2014 WLC (Raj.) UC 30 & Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar & ors. reported in AIR 1985 Supreme Court 628.

7. Learned PP Shri S.K. Saini submits that though it is alleged in F.I.R. and statements of the witnesses that Rs. 6,50,000/- were given in cash for purchasing the car but it reveals from the material collected during investigation, it is proved that the said car was purchased by the petitioner accused from Army Canteen, Hisar Haryana. After seeing permission and getting loan of Rs. 4,50,000/- by the petitioner from the State Bank of India Branch Mahendragarh. Therefore, the money which is said to be given by the