The rightful ownership of property must be established through a thorough trial process.

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the order dated

18.06.2025 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.4 of 2025 by the learned Special Judge for Trial Cases SCs/STs (PoA) Act – cum – II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad (for short “revisional Court”), confirming the order dated 04.02.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.25 of 2025 in Crime No.640 of 2024 by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Bodhan (for short ‘the trial Court’).

2. Heard the submissions of Sri T.Srujan Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 – State.

3. The learned petitioner counsel has submitted that the petition filed by the petitioner before the trial Court under Section 497 of BNSS for release of the vehicle i.e. Eicher DCM bearing No.TS16UD4281, but the same was dismissed by the trial Court. Against which, the petitioner approached the revisional Court vide Crl.Revision Petition No.4 of 2025 and that the revisional Court has dismissed his petition confirming the orders of the trial Court on 18.06.2025, thus, he filed the present petition to quash the orders passed by the revisional Court and grant interim custody of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner. He further argued that the petitioner herein is the owner of the vehicle, and that if the vehicle remains in interim custody for a prolonged period, it may suffer severe damage due to wear and tear, including erosion of the tires and other parts, thereby inadvertently causing loss to the petitioner. He therefore prayed that the vehicle be released in favour of the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that there is an unregistered agreement of sale between the accused and the petitioner herein, and that the trial Court has rightly observed the existence of such an agreement in respect of the vehicle, i.e., Eicher DCM bearing No. TS16UD4281. He further argued that the trial Court passed its order based on sound reasoning, which was upheld by the revisional Court. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. The record reveals that the petitioner is none other than the de facto complainant and the allegations in crime No.640 of 2024 is that the petitioner is the rightful owner and that the subject vehicle was seized from the possession of the accused alleging that the accused committed theft of the said vehicle. The allegations of the complaint reveal that the de facto complainant has alleged that the accused has snatched away his mobile phone and net cash of Rs.3000/- and ran away with the Eicher vehicle. Thus, the vehicle was seized during the course of investigation and now the de facto complainant i.e. the petitioner herein claims the interim custody of the vehicle saying that he is the rightful owner.

7. The trial Court record reveals that the accused has produced an unregistered agreement of sale between the de facto complainant and the accused and that the accused has also transferred money online towards part sale consideration and the de facto complainant has handed over the possession. Thus, there is an alleged agreement and online money transaction between the de facto complainant and the accused and the validity of the same needs to be tested during the course of trial. Though the petitioner says that he is the rightful owner, the said ownership needs to be established after a full-fledged trial. Hence, the trial Court was right in dismissing the petition and the revisional Court also confirmed the same, thus, the orders passed by the revisional Court on 18.06.2025 need no intervention, hence, the same is upheld.

8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dis