PATIL J. ( 1 ) THIS petition is directed against the order dated 8-7-1985 passed by the j. M. F. C. , Kolar, under Sec. 457 Cr. P. C. in Cr. No. 24/85 entrusting interim custody of the vehicle bearing No. MEG 7676 to the 1st respondent and as confirmed by the Sessions Judge by his order dated 28-10-1985, in Cr. R. P. No. 46 of 1985, on his file. ( 2 ) THE 1st respondent who claims to have entered into a contract of purchase of the vehicle in question from the petitioner filed a complaint before the Magistrate alleging commission of the offence of theft of the vehicle from his possession. The learned Magistrate, without cognizance of the offence, referred the complaint to the police as provided under S. 156 (3) Cr. P C. for investigation of the same. On receipt of the complaint, the Mulbagil Police registered a case in Cr. No. 13/85 and took up investigation of the case. During investigation, the police seized the vehicle when it was found parked in the compound of the premises belonging to one Ramakrishna Reddy of Kirakere in hindupur Taluk and accordingly made a report to the court. The police, after investigation of the case, concluded that it was a dispute of civil nature and accordingly submitted a 'b' summary report. The learned Magistrate, who had in the meanwhile heard arguments on the application made for interim custody, came to the conclusion that although the R. C. was produced by the petitioned herein, Form No. 29 produced by the complainant showed that the vehicle had been transferred to the complainant and the complainant being in possession of the vehicle, the vehicle has to be entrusted to his custody. In that view, the Magistrate rejected the application made by the petitioner and made the order directing release of the vehicle in question in favour of the complainant on his executing an indemnity bond in a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in favour of the court on certain conditions. Being aggrieved, when the petitioner approached the Sessions Judge in revision, the Sessions Judge having confirmed the order made by the Magistrate, the petitioner has approached this court. ( 3 ) MR. 1,00,000/- in favour of the court on certain conditions. Being aggrieved, when the petitioner approached the Sessions Judge in revision, the Sessions Judge having confirmed the order made by the Magistrate, the petitioner has approached this court. ( 3 ) MR. Abdul Wazid Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that the petitioner being the registered owner, it was proper to entrust the custody of the vehicle to him and not to the complainant who claims to have purchased the vehicle and the order passed by the court below being not in conformity with the decision of this Court is liable to be set aside. Mr. Bhagawan, learned counsel for respondent-1, however tried to support the order as passed by the courts below. ( 4 ) FROM a reading of the orders passed by the courts below, it appears, both the courts below have made the orders as if they are settling the dispute between the parties regarding the ownership of the vehicle, which is beyond the scope of the limited inquiry as provided under S. 451 and S. 457 Cr. P. C. In the case on hand, the Magistrate having not yet accepted the 'b' summary report and there being no criminal case also instituted on the report made by the police, it would appear, the proper provisions that would be applicable to the case are the provisions contained in S. 457 and not S. 451 Cr. P. C. , in as much as no inquiry or trial was pending. Although in a case while making the order regarding the entrustment of the custody as provided under s. 457 Cr. P. C. , it may be permissible for the court to go into the question of title, but the criminal court cannot decide such questions of title in such proceedings. Here in the case on hand, not only the petitioner was admittedly the registered owner of the vehicle, but the complainant claims to have purchased the very vehicle from the petitioner. Of course, he had produced some documents to substantiate his claim regarding the purchase of the vehicle, but the petitioner had also denied having executed any agreement of transfer or of having signed on Form No. 29 for transfer of the vehicle in the name of the complainant. Of course, he had produced some documents to substantiate his claim regarding the purchase of the vehicle, but the petitioner had also denied having executed any agreement of transfer or of having signed on Form No. 29 for transfer of the vehicle in the name of the complainant. That being the position, the petitioner-1st accused being admittedly the registered owner, as pointed out by this Court 1980 (1) Kar. L. J. 332, he is the proper person to whom the custody of the vehicle has to be entrusted. In such cases, when applications are made for interim custody, what the court has to inquire in the first place is, whether the person who claims for the interim custody of the vehicle seized is the registered owner entitled to use the vehicle as required under the provisions of the motor Vehicles Act. if he is such a person, then ordinarily he is the right and correct person to whom the custody of the vehicle has to be entrusted. in the case reported in M/s Mangharam and sons v R. C. Morzaria (1984 Cr. L. J. ,1580) also while laying emphasis on this principle it is pointed out that there is also possibility of some other person undisputedly being owner of the vehicle though not registered owner as provided under the Motor Vehicles Act being en titled to interim custody. What has been said may be correct on the facts of that case, but the principle underlying is as between the claimants one who is the registered owner should be preferred while making the order regarding interim custody of the vehicle. Both the courts below have committed material. error in making the order of interim custody in favour of the complainant who is not admittedly the registered owner, but who claim to be the owner and his claim of ownership was also sought to be disputed. Therefore, the petition is allowed. The orders of the courts below are set aside and the application made by the petitioner for 'interim custody is allowed and it is ordered that the vehicle in question be entrusted to the custody of the petitioner S. Abdul Jabber on his furnishing indemnity bond to produce the vehicle before the court whenever so ordered in its original condition, or its value when called to do so. --- *** --- .