The court emphasized the need to prevent the disputed auto from being exposed to open sky and becoming scrap value, and ordered a fresh enquiry to determine the entitlement of the parties to interim custody of the auto.

Like two women claimed motherhood to a child before King Salamon, before me two persons Sivanraj/third party and Pandi/de-facto complainant in Crime No.119 of 2015 on the file of Alanganallur Police claims ownership to the auto bearing Registration No. TN 59 AQ 6509. In present day, we cannot give Solamon type justice.

2. Of course, it involves mind-boggling exercise. Yet, the matter totally rests on the provisions of Section 451 Cr.P.C. The principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [2003(1) CTC 175 (SC)] that the case property – Auto should not be allowed to expose to open sky, ultimately, it will become scrap value.

3. However, even to apply Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (Supra), the Court must find out the entitlement of the person to interim custody of the vehicle. Who is entitled to have the possession of the said Auto is looming large in this petitioner.

4. There is hectic legal battle to have the possession of the said auto, faced with headache, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti thought it fit to dismiss the petition as there is rival claim and dismissed it. If there is a case, there will be a counter case. Otherwise, no case. If there is a claim, there is possibility of a counter claim.

5. Before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vadipttai. There was lacks materials. Now, Sivanraj, the revision petitioner herein traces his ownership from Utham Finance. While Pandi trace his ownership from Bank Finance. Incidentally, it will also involve the RC book. Thus, there is one auto, one R.C. Book, but two owners, who is the real owner has become a million dollar question in this case. Before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti, the document now Sivanraj referred to and the documents Pandi refers to have not been filed. In such circumstances, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti on the ground that it is a rival claim, dismissed the petition. Thus, the matter remains yet to be adjudicated based on documents and relevant materials before the learned Judicial Magistrate. In the circumstances, the Magistrate shall be asked to redo the work, conduct de-nova enquiry based on the documents to be filed by both sides. It is purely going to be property enquiry. With regard to the Auto materials collected by the police during investigation shall be presented before the Magistrate.

6. In the circumstances, ordered as under:

(i) This revision is allowed.

(ii) The impugned orders of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti in Cr. M.P. Nos. 1989 and 1990 of 2016 are set aside

(iii) The learned Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti will restore the said Cr. M.P. Nos. 1989 and 1990 of 2016 to file. Both the parties viz., Sivanraj/third party and Pandi/de-facto complainant shall produce all the documents relating to the auto bearing Registration No. TN 59 AQ 6509 in support of their claim before the said Magistrate

(iv) The learned Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti will conduct fresh enquiry and pass property order under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. according to law at an early date.