JASRAJ CHOPRA, J. — This petition under s. 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order of the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Badi Sadri dated 3.8.1987 whereby the learned Magistrate has ordered to handover the possession of the disputed motor-cycle bearing No. PNB 6073 to Shri Laxmi-narain on furnishing a surety bond and Superdginama of Rs. 16,000/- with this condition that he will not change its shape and colour and he will keep it in good condition and if it is found that the accused is entitled to its possession, he will hand over its possession to him. 2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this petition briefly stated are : that non-petitioner Laxminarain filed a complaint in P.S. Nikum on 9.7.1987 that he has purchased one Motor Cycle bearing No. PNB 6073 from the petitioner Radheshyam for a sum of Rs. 15,901/- He has paid that amount and obtained the possession of the motor cycle. On 2.7.1987 he kept this motor cycle inside his house and closed the doors but when he woke up in the morning, he found the motor cycle missing. After sometime, he was informed that this motor cycle was being driven by Radheyshyam and, there-fore, he went to Nikum and lodged a report on 9.7.1987 in P.S. Nikum. On the basis of that report, the investigation was conducted and a case against the accused was challaned in the Court of learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Badi Sadri for the commission of the offences under ss. 457 and 380 IPC. 3 During investigation, the motor cycle was recovered and an application for its possession was filed by non-petitioner Laxminarain. A notice was issued to accused Radheyshyam who too has claimed the possession of the motor cycle. The learned lower court, after hearing both the parties ordered that the motor cycle be handed over to non-petitioner Laxminarain who has purchased it from accused Radheyshyam and hence this petition under s; 482 Cr.P.C. 4. I have heard Mr. M.C. Bishnoi, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sandeep Mehta, the learned counsel for non-petitioner Laxminarain as also Mrs. Chandralekha, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and have carefully gone through the record of the case. 5. Mr. I have heard Mr. M.C. Bishnoi, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sandeep Mehta, the learned counsel for non-petitioner Laxminarain as also Mrs. Chandralekha, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and have carefully gone through the record of the case. 5. Mr. Bishnoi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that petitioner Radheyshyam is the registered owner of this motor cycle and, therefore, interim custody of this vehicle should be handed over to him instead of non petitioner Laxminarain who alleges himself to be the purchaser of this motor cycle. In this respect, reliance was placed on U Kariya-ppa V.P. Sreekantiah (1), K. Sidda Reddy V. S. Rangaswamy Naidu (2), Jacob V. Jayabharat Credit & Investment Co. Ltd. (3), Ramchandra Rathi V. Sunil Khosla (4). In these authorities, it has been held that interim custody of a motor vehicle has to be given to the registered owner. It cannot at any rate be given to a person who is not the registered owner even if the police took possession of the same from him. This is because the vehicle will have to be kept idle as only a registered owner can ply the same. If the vehicle cannot be used on the road, no purpose will be served in giving its interim custody to a person who is not its registered owner. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Sandeep Mehta, the learned counsel appearing for non-petitioner Laxminarain has submitted that ownership of the vehicle can be transferred to any person even without getting the registration documents transferred in his name. According to him, while giving the property on Supardginama, the question about" the title of property should not weigh much with the court but it has to consider as to who is best entitled to its possession and possession should be restored to the person either from whose possession it was seized or to the person who is best entitled to its custody. In this respect, he has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Bannesingh V. State of Raj (6), wherein it has been observed that the question before him at present was not about the title of the bus but was only with regard to the possession and when admittedly the possession of the bus was with Bannesingh at the time he is alleged to have been deprived of the possession by the accused Abdul Rehman, the mere fact that the registration had not been transferred in his name was not enough to disentitle him to the possession of the bus. 7. Reliance was also placed on a decision of this Court in Makbool Khan Vs. State of Raj. (7), wherein it has been observed that the mere fact that the registration certificate of the truck was shown to be in the name of K was not sufficient to treat him the person entitled to the lawful possession thereof, until a final report was given by the police in the criminal by K non-petitioner is cleared off. In this view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer cannot be said to be illegal improper or unreasonable. In this case, non-petitioner Laxminarain has filed the agreement by which the possession of the vehicle was transferred in his favour after acceptance of the full price of the vehicle. Petitioner Radheyshyam has admitted his signature on this agreement which clearly shows that this agreement was executed and the vehicle was transferred to non-petitioner Laxminarain. Under these circumstances, the learned lower court was perfectly justified in handing over the possession of the motor cycle to non-petitioner Laxminarain. Thus, I feel that this is not a case where the extra-ordinary powers of this Court under s. 482 Cr.P.C, should be exercised in favour of petitioner Radheyshyam: 8. In the result, I find no force in this petition and it is hereby dis-missed.