The temporary custody of property pending trial, as per Section 451 of the Cr.P.C., should be based on prima facie ownership recorded with the registering authority, with the understanding that the civil court will ultimately determine the rights of the parties.

S.S. Saron, J

1. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C.' -for short) seeking quashing of the order dated 15.9.2007 (Annexure-P.3) passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khanna whereby the Tata 407 vehicle bearing registration No.PB-10-BG-1608 has been ordered to be released on `sapurdari’ to Parminder Singh (respondent No.2) on his furnishing `sapurdari’ bond in the sum of Rs.5 lacs with one surety in the like amount, undertaking not to dispose of the vehicle and to keep the vehicle intact and produce the same in Court as and when required during the trial of the case. A direction is also sought to give the possession of the said Tata 407 vehicle to the petitioner.

2. The case set up by the petitioner is that he purchased the Tata 407 vehicle in question from one Kesar Singh son of Gurcharan Singh for consideration. The registration certificate of the vehicle as also affidavit dated 21.2.2007 of the seller that he had received the full and final payment was given to him. The possession of the vehicle was also given to the petitioner by Kesar Singh. On the basis of the affidavit of Kesar Singh who sold the vehicle, the petitioner moved an application before the District Transport Officer (`DTO’ – for short), Jalandhar for transfer of the vehicle in his favour. He also paid the taxes for the year 2007-08. The DTO, Jalandhar transferred the vehicle in the name of the petitioner vide an entry dated 14.4.2007. Thereafter, on 31.7.2007, the said Tata 407 vehicle was seized by the Police in case FIR No.108 dated 11.5.2007 registered at Police Station Sadar Khanna for the offences under Sections 420, 467 and 471 Indian Penal Code (`IPC’ – for short). Rajnish Kumar, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, In-charge, Police Post Issru, Police Station Sadar Khanna came to the Janta Tempo Union, Goraya where the vehicle was parked and he took possession of the same. A certificate dated 31.7.2007 (Annexure-P.2) regarding taking possession of the vehicle was given by aforesaid Rajnish Kumar, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police. The registration certificate of the vehicle was also taken. FIR No.108 dated 11.5.2007 in which the Tata 407 vehicle was taken in possession by the Police was lodged by Parminder Singh (respondent No.2) who alleged that Kesar Singh was owner of Tata 407 vehicle and he had sold the said vehicle to the complainant-Parminder Singh (respondent No.2) vide agreement dated 21.8.2006 for a sum of Rs.3,35,000/-. Possession of the vehicle had also been given. It was promised by Kesar Singh – the owner of the vehicle that the papers of the vehicle would be given to Parminder Singh (respondent No.2) by 10.10.2006 after completing the same and the remaining amount would also be taken then. At the time of agreement dated 21.8.2006, the respondent No.2 Parmidner Singh had given Rs.50,000/-to Kesar Singh, the seller of the vehicle. The Tata 407 vehicle while it was with Kesar Singh was under a loan from M/s Tata Motors Limited, B.H.T.C., Zirakpur. On account of default in the re-payment of loan by Kesar Singh the vehicle had been re-possessed by the said financier by force on 26.8.2006 at 9.00 a.m. from Shiv Kumar, who was the driver of Parminder Singh (respondent No.2). Receipt regarding re-possession of the vehicle by the financier was given to the driver of Parminder Singh (respondent No.2). According to Parminder Singh (respondent No.2) he had given the balance amount to the seller of the vehicle, namely, Kesar Singh who deposed an affidavit dated 11.9.2006 in this regard, which was attested by the Executive Magistrate, Malaud. Kesar Singh at the time of sale had assured Parminder Singh (respondent No.2) that the loan would be deposited and he would get the vehicle released on that day. However, Kesar Singh did not give the possession of the vehicle to Parminder Singh (respondent No.2). On repeated requests made by respondent No.2 and