Order

The present criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 being aggrieved against the order dated 18.01.2024 whereby the application filed by the applicant finance company for permitting them to sell the vehicle in question has been rejected as well as the revision petition preferred against the same has also been rejected vide order dated 21.06.2025 by the Sessions Judge, Bhilwara.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the vehicle in question being No.RJ-06-GB-0875 was financed by the petitioner’s company. However, dispute arose between the original seller and the subsequent purchaser regarding which the present FIR has been registered and trial regarding the same is pending consideration before the learned trial Court.

It is submitted that since the installments were not paid and the vehicle was hypothecated with the finance company they were entitled to take possession of the same and in pursuance thereto they filed an application for the said purpose and the same was allowed and the vehicle was released to them on supurdaginama vide order dated 08.06.2023.

The petitioner in the present case is the finance company and since their finances have not been cleared consequently they have the right to sell the alleged vehicle and in order to recover their amount. In such circumstances they filed an application for seeking permission to sell the vehicle but, however the learned trial Court vide order dated 18.01.2024 dismissed the same on the ground that since the accused is absconding and the trial is pending consideration the said vehicle cannot be released.

Aggrieved against the same the revision has been preferred but however the same has also been rejected vide order dated 21.06.2025 supporting that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no reason for not permitting the petitioner to sell the vehicle as keeping the same would serve no purpose and by keeping vehicle the police station the condition and value of the vehicle is only going to deteriorate and the finance company would be deprived of its recovery of its finances, as the accused is already not paying the same.

Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Judgment passed by Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Shriram Transport Company Ltd. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh in 2024:MPHC-IND:35730 and prayed for allowing the petition.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer however, is not in a position to dispute the fact that the vehicle in question was financed by the petitioner company.

This Court has considered the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and has gone through the order dated 18.01.2024 as well as order dated 21.06.2025.

The facts stated above are not disputed. The petitioner being the finance company of the vehicle is certainly entitled to recover their finances in time and the same can be done if the vehicle is auctioned in due time as keeping the vehicle in the police station will serve no purpose and will only deteriorate the vehicle.

Further with the passage of time, the model of the vehicle becomes older and does not fetch the amount required for settling the finances. It further may result into non-recovery of the loan amount and lead to complications in the recovery proceedings against the owner.

Hence, it would also not be in the interest of the accused owner in the present case as neither he is able to utilise the vehicle and pay the installments nor is the finance company able to recover the loan amount advanced by auctioning the vehicle.

The Hon’ble Apex Court Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2002)10 SCC 283 has clearly held that keeping the vehicle in police station serves no purpose and in fact the same should be dispose