ORDER

1. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Sections 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashment of the order dated 09-06-2022 passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Ganjbasoda, District Vidisha in Cr.R. No.12/2022 whereby the order dated 22-04-2022 passed by the JMFC, Ganjbasoda District Vidisha has been affirmed by which the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. has been dismissed. 2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioner preferred an application under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. stating therein that between the petitioner and respondent No.2 an agreement was executed in relation to harvester Surendra 930 bearing registration No. M.P.04 DB 3144 but with ulterior motive respondent No.2 got registered FIR at Crime No.44/2021 against the petitioner in which the said harvester was seized on 29/03/2021 by the police.

Both the parties preferred applications for taking the said harvester under supurdagi but the application of respondent No.2 was allowed. Thereafter, the criminal revision preferred by the petitioner has also been dismissed.

3. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has paid Rs.14,40,000/- to Rajeshwari Agro Sales to purchase the said harvester but respondent No.2 in collusion with Rajeshwari Agro Sales got the sale letter issued in his favour. The documents -receipts of payments submitted by the petitioner alongwith his application for Supurdagi were not considered by both the Courts below. The petitioner is actual owner of the harvester, therefore, the Supurdagi of the said harvester should be given to the petitioner but learned JMFC did not consider the material aspect of the matter and dismissed the application of the petitioner and given the Supurdagi of the said vehicle to respondent No.2. On revision, learned revisional Court also failed to understand the controversy and dismissed the revision petition preferred by the petitioner.

4. According to petitioner, the vehicle in question belongs to him and at present, crops are to be reaped, therefore, for performing of his agriculture work, the said vehicle is required to the petitioner.

Thus, prayed for setting aside of the impugned orders passed by the Courts below.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the submissions and supported the impugned orders. There is finding of two Courts below. Thus, prayed for dismissal of this petition. 6. Heard.

7. This is a case where the petitioner is seeking Supurdagi of the vehicle-harvester bearing registration No. M.P.04 DB 3144 on the ground that since he has made the payment to the Rajeshwari Agro Sales in relation to purchase of the said vehicle and payment receipts were also submitted therefore, he is owner of the said vehicle. Petitioner may need the said harvester for reaping the crops but for that he has to prove his ownership.

8. According to petitioner, the said vehicle was given by respondent No.2 under lease to him on 04/01/2020 while the registration of said vehicle is of 23/07/2020, therefore, since the vehicle itself was registered on 23/07/2020, then how respondent can enter into an agreement with the petitioner for giving the said vehicle on lease on 04/01/2020. Before the learned JMFC Court, respondent