JUDGMENT Khatri, J. - This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pune, made under Section 451 read with Section 457 of the Code, directing that pending decision of the Criminal Case the seized car be made over to the custody of the accused-respondent No. 1 on his executing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount. 2. The petitioners, M/s. Quality Machine Tools, Bombay, deal in machines and have a branch office at Pune also. The respondent No. 1 Mohinder Pal Singh Ahluwalia (for short, 'the respondent') was managing this branch on behalf of the petitioners at Pune. On 9-1-1980 the petitioners purchased the car in question for Rs. 49,562/- and placed it at the disposal of the Pune Office for their use. On 8-2-1983 the respondent got this car transferred in his own name by making an application to the Regional Transport Officer, Pune. On 26-2-1983 the petitioners lodged F.I.R. with the Pune Police under Section 409, Indian Penal Code, alleging that the respondent had committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the car, by dishonestly getting it transferred in his own name, although it was placed in his charge by the petitioners for office use only. 3. The Pune Police seized the car during investigation. Both parties thereupon approached the learned Magistrate for custody of the car. It is stated at the Bar that the police have not yet filed charge-sheet before the Magistrate. After hearing Advocates of both sides, by a speaking order dated 9-3-1983, the learned Magistrate directed the handing over of the car to the respondent on his executing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount. 4. The learned Advocates of both sides have taken me through the record of the case. The law is well settled that the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are to be used sparingly, only in cases where the injustice complained of is of a grave nature and palpably clear. This power can be legitimately exercised to prevent abuse of the process of Court or to secure the ends of justice. I am afraid the present case does not make out sufficient ground for its exercise. 5. This power can be legitimately exercised to prevent abuse of the process of Court or to secure the ends of justice. I am afraid the present case does not make out sufficient ground for its exercise. 5. It is an admitted position that on 5-2-1983 the respondent had seen one Shri Jagjit Singh Chawla, a partner of the petitioners firm, at Bombay. According to the respondent at that time it was agreed that the car should be sold to him by the petitioners. His allegation is that he was being paid remuneration on commission basis and in that connection he had to recover a substantial amount of the tune of Rs. 3 lacs or so from the petitioners, and that the price of the car was agreed to be adjusted out of these dues: As against this, the petitioners deny that any deal as indicated above had taken place between the respondent and Shri Jagjit singh on 5-2-1983 or any other time. According to the petitioners, what actually transpired at this meeting was that the respondent expressed his desire of resigning from the job, which request was acceded to by Shri Jagjit Singh. The partner is further said to have pointed out to the respondent that a sum of Rs. one lac was due from him and directed him to send the car to Bombay. The respondent agreed to comply. 6. The record of the case shows that after the respondent got the car transferred in his name on 8-2-1983, he addressed a letter to the petitioners on the very next day informing them that as per discussion on 5th he had got the car transferred in his own name. There are also on the record, a telegram and a letter in confirmation, both dated 1-2-1983, sent by the petitioners to the respondent expressing their shock at the action taken by the respondent. The petitioners have denied in this letter the deal about the car, as alleged by the respondent. 7. After taking into consideration the rival contentions of the parties and also inspecting accounts extracts produced by the respondent, the learned Magistrate has observed in his order that the dispute between the parties regarding the arrears of be respondent's remuneration is of a civil nature. In fact the parties stated before bim that they were thinking of filing suits also. After taking into consideration the rival contentions of the parties and also inspecting accounts extracts produced by the respondent, the learned Magistrate has observed in his order that the dispute between the parties regarding the arrears of be respondent's remuneration is of a civil nature. In fact the parties stated before bim that they were thinking of filing suits also. The Magistrate felt that in the peculiar circumstances of the case it would be just to allow the car to be retained by the respondent who was admittedly in possession thereof. This view taken by the Magistrate cannot be said to be unreasonable, or palpably unjust, although one could have legitimately reached a contrary decision also namely to make over the car to the petitioners. It is not even remotely suggested that the car will be exposed to any waste by the respondent If at all such a contingency unfortunately does arise, the petitioners can always move the Magistrate for cancellation or modification of the order. Further the order made by the learned Magistrate will obviously be subject to any order regarding the custody of the car that the Civil Court may think it fit to make in a suit, if and wren instituted by either side. 8. In the circumstances of the case I think that the petitioners have not made out sufficient ground to persuade this Court to exercise its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the result this petition fails. Rule discharged. Petition dismissed.