JUDGMENT 1. N.L. Tibrewal, J. - This petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated May 4, 1991 of Judicial Magistrate No. 12, Jaipur City, Jaipur in criminal case No. 133/90 in relation to the custody of the truck No. RRO 5205. 2. The relevant facts are : The non-petitioner No. 2 Ajmer Singh (to be referred as complainant) and the petitioner Guru Charan Singh are the real brothers. The complainant filed a complainant in the court of Judicial Magistrate No. 12, Jaipur-city. Jaipur on June 8, 1990. It was forwarded under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the police station Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur. After receipt of the complainant, the police registered crime No. 133/90 under sections 420-419-467-471-477A 120B-201-234 and 251 IPC. The prosecution case, as detailed in the report, is that the petitioner Guru Charan Singh obtained a cheque of Rs. 17,400/- from United India Insurance Company Limited, Jaipur which was in the name of the complainant and deposited the said cheque in the savings bank account of the complainant in Punjab National Bank, Branch Raja Park Jaipur and thereafter, withdrew a sum of Rs. 19,000/- from the said account by making forged signature of the complainant on a bearer cheque. Another accusation against the accused-petitioner was made that he also got the transfer of the registration of the truck in his name by preparing a forged sale letter by forging the signature of the complainant on it. A perusal of the complainant shows that whatever accusations have been made against the accused-petitioner, they relate to the forgery to have been committed by the petitioner in relation to the cheque and the sale-letter for transfer of registration certificate in his name. There is no accusation that the petitioner obtained the possession of the truck in question unlawfully by exercising any fraud, misrepresentation or use of force etc. 3. After registration of the case, the police commenced the investigation. There is no dispute before me that the truck in question has been seized from the possession of the petitioner. In the court of the trial Magistrate, the petitioner, as well as, the complainant moved separate applications to obtain the custody of the truck. The learned Magistrate, after hearing the counsel for the parties, gave the truck in the custody of the petitioner vide his order August 1, 1990. In the court of the trial Magistrate, the petitioner, as well as, the complainant moved separate applications to obtain the custody of the truck. The learned Magistrate, after hearing the counsel for the parties, gave the truck in the custody of the petitioner vide his order August 1, 1990. It appears that the said order was challenged by the complainant in a revision petition in the court of District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur-city, Jaipur. The learned Judge set-aside the order of the Magistrate and directed the Magistrate to hear the matter afresh and pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law. He also directed the Magistrate to get the truck back from the petitioner: Thereafter, the matter was re-considered by the learned Magistrate and by impugned order, the Magistrate gave the custody of the truck in favour of the complainant on the terms and conditions mentioned in the order. Being aggrieved against the said order, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the certificate of registration of the truck is in his name and the truck was seized by the police from his possession. The learned counsel further submits that there is no averment in the complainant that the possession of the truck with the petitioner is unlawful. He also argued that the petitioner had produced as many as 15 documents before the learned Magistrate, but without making any proper consideration of the same, the impugned order has been passed against him.On the contrary, the learned counsel for the complainant contended that the petitioner committed forgery in the cheque, as well as, in the sale-letter and on the basis of the forged sale-letter he has got the registration of the truck in his name. The learned counsel argued that on the basis of a forged document, no benefit should be given to the petitioner and the learned Magistrate has rightly ordered to give the truck in the custody of the complainant. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. I have also gone through the entire material placed on the record. It is not worthy that after the completion of the investigation, the police has submitted negative report in the court of the Magistrate holding that no case is made-out. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. I have also gone through the entire material placed on the record. It is not worthy that after the completion of the investigation, the police has submitted negative report in the court of the Magistrate holding that no case is made-out. The relevant police papers are also in the file of the trial Magistrate and I have considered the material contained in the said file.After going through the entire material, some facts are either not in dispute or cannot be disputed. Firstly, the truck was seized from the possession of the petitioner. Secondly, there is no averment in the complainant that the petitioner had obtained the custody of the truck by unlawful means from the custody of the complainant. Thirdly, the police after completion of the investigation has submitted a final report, though the Magistrate has not passed any final order on the said report as yet. It is also not in dispute that the certificate of registration stands in the name of the petitioner, though there is an allegation that the said certificate has been obtained on the basis of a forged sale-letter. It is also not in dispute that the original certificate of registration was in the name of the complainant and that the petitioner and the complainant are the real brothers. It is further noteworthy that the Investigating Agency has recorded a finding in its final report that on the sale letter the signatures of the complainant are not forged and that it was signed by him. From the perusal of the statements recorded by the police during the investigation, it appears that there was some family disputes between the brothers about the partition of the properties and on account of this family dispute, this criminal case has got its birth. It will not be in the interest of justice to make critical analysis of the various documents on which the parties have placed reliance and it will not be proper to make any comment with regard to the sale-letter on the basis of which, the truck has been registered in the name of the petitioner as any comment by this Court may prejudice the case of either of the parties. But one thing is clear from the record that the truck has been seized from the possession of the petitioner and that there is no allegation either in the complainant or in the statements of the witnesses that the petitioner had obtained the possession, of the truck by unlawful means from the complaint. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has got force that even the Magistrate takes cognizance on the final report and a prosecution is launched against the petitioner, then too, the possession of the truck cannot be given to the complainant after the final decision in the criminal case, even the Magistrate holds that the sale letter is a forged document. It is noteworthy that the possession of the truck is not the subject matter in the criminal case.In my view, the learned Magistrate has taken into consideration certain facts relating to the partition of the properties between the two brothers when he observed that in the agreement dated May 21, 1990 there was no mention about the partition of the truck. The learned Magistrate has also drawn an inference from the fact that the agreement with regard to the partition of the properties between the brothers is dated 1-5-1990; while the registration of the truck has been made in the name of the petitioner on 27-3-1990 and if the registration of the truck had been on the basis of the partition between the brothers, then it would have been after 21-5-1990 for which no explanation has been given by the petitioner. In my view, this fact was not so much relevant for the custody of the truck. 6. After going through the impugned order of the Magistrate which is under challenge before this Court and taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the order of the Magistrate delivering the possession of the truck in favour of the complainant is not sustainable, especially when there is no accusation in the complainant that the petitioner had obtained the possession of the truck from the complainant by adopting unlawful means. 7. Consequently, this petition deserves to be allowed and it is hereby allowed. 7. Consequently, this petition deserves to be allowed and it is hereby allowed. The order of the Magistrate dated May 4, 1991 is hereby set-aside and it is directed that the custody of the truck be given to the petitioner on the following conditions:- (i) That the petitioner will furnish a bond in the sum of Rs. 2,50.000/- and a supurdginama in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Magistrate; (ii) That he will produce the truck before the trial Magistrate or any other court as and when directed to do the same ; (iii) That he will keep the possession of the truck with him and will not transfer the truck to any other person without the prior permission of the Court; (iv) That he will produce three coloured photo graphs of the truck, to be taken from different angles showing the registration number, before the trial Magistrate; and (v) That he will keep the truck in a proper condition. It is, however, made clear that any observations made by this Court in this order are limited for the custody of the truck and shall not prejudice the Magistrate in any manner in passing any order in the criminal case. *******