P. N. S. CHOUHAN, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, holder of general power of attorney or legal heir of late Ladhuram, claimed under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter the Code) custody of Truck No. M. B. R. 1615. An order dated 23. 12. 1991 was passed in his favour in M. Cr. C. No. 25/91 by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur, the non-applicant preferred Criminal Revision No. 8/1992 and the same was allowed vide order dated 25. 2. 1992 passed by 5th Addi. Sessions Judge, Raipur, which is under challenge in this petition under Section 482 of the Code. ( 2 ) THE truck in question belongs to Ladhuram. The non-applicant claims to have purchased the same and got the registration transferred in her favour. Petitioners case is that Ladhuram went to Seeker (Rajasthan) on 19. 7. 199 1 on hearing the sad demise of his mother. During his absence, the non-applicant with the help of her husband Nirpal Singh Bedi and agent Durga Rao forged sale papers in her favour and on its basis got the registration fraudulently transferred. Subsequently, Ladhuram died. On 1. 8. 1991, the truck was being driven by applicants driver Prahlad when Mahendra, who was set up by the non-applicant and her husband, forcibly drove it away and lodged a false report of its involvement in a road accident giving rise to Crime No. 640/91 of P. S. Civil Lines, Raipur. The truck was seized by the police in that connection. On investigation, the report lodged by Mahendra is found to be false. Final report 4/91 has been submitted in that case and a case of forgery has been registered against the non-applicant and others. Prahlad had also lodged a report of theft in the Police Station after the truck was taken away by the Mahendra and a case has been registered. ( 3 ) CONSIDERING the rival contentions of the parties, record of Crime No. 640/9 1 of P. S. Civil Lines, Raipur, has been obtained to ascertain as to from whom and in what circumstances the truck in question was seized. ( 4 ) THE State though not impleaded as non-applicant participated in the case and the learned Govt. Advocate supported petitioners contention. ( 4 ) THE State though not impleaded as non-applicant participated in the case and the learned Govt. Advocate supported petitioners contention. Petitioners arguments are that the truck belongs to the legal heir of deceased Ladhuram and since the same was seized in connection with a false report of accident lodged at the instance of non-applicants husband, in view of submission of final report in the said case, the C. J. M. , Raipur, rightly held the petitioner entitled to be entrusted with the truck. As the order passed by the learned C. J. M. did not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or patent illegality, the learned 5th Addi. Sessions Judge, Raipur, patently erred in setting aside the order passed in petitioners favour by the C. J. M. In reply, it was urged that in view of the registration of the vehicle in favour of the non-applicant and the seizure of the truck from Mahendra, who was in the employment of the non-applicant at the pertinent time, the return of the vehicle to non-applicant vide the impugned order is just and proper not liable to be challenged under Section 482 of the Code. ( 5 ) THE truck was seized in Crime No. 640/91 of P. S. Civil Lines, Raipur, therefore, an application under Section 457 of the Code had to be disposed of with reference to the said crime record whereof unmistakably shows that the story of road accident was invented by Mahendra, who was setup by non-applicants husband, to grab the truck through short-cut of criminal court. TNilpal Singh Bedi, husband of non-applicant, in his statement u/s. 161 of the Code recorded in the aforesaid case virtually blurted out this contention. Seizure of the bicycle said to have been damaged in the accident also supports the concoction of the story of the accident. The seizure memo shows the bicycle to be a Junk, in all probability taken out from a junk heap fully rusted without paddles and thus unusable. The transfer of registration and issue of temporary permit in favour of the non-applicant too supports the above theory of connection. These papers do not show the basis of the transfer. The original owner Ladhurams presence is nowhere mentioned. This transfer of registration and issue of temporary permit took place on 30. 7. The transfer of registration and issue of temporary permit in favour of the non-applicant too supports the above theory of connection. These papers do not show the basis of the transfer. The original owner Ladhurams presence is nowhere mentioned. This transfer of registration and issue of temporary permit took place on 30. 7. 199 1 that is just two days before the alleged accident which shows that having accomplished his dubious mission in the office of the Regional Transport Officer, Non-applicants husband lost no time to stage the drama of alleged accident to get physical possession of the truck through the easy and inexpensive route of criminal process. Such a blatant abuse of the process of a criminal. Court must be corrected under Section 482 of the Code more so because there was neither any error of jurisdiction nor any patent illegality to warrant intervention by the revisional Court. ( 6 ) COPIES of F. I. R. , statement of non-applicants husband and the memorandum of seizure of the bicycle be kept on record of this case and the investigation papers of the aforesaid Crime No. 640/9 1 be returned back to Govt. Advocate. ( 7 ) IN result, the revisional order passed by 5th Addi. Sessions Judge, Raipur, on 25. 2. 1992 in Criminal Revision No. 8/92 is hereby set-aside and the order passed in applicants favour by C. J. M. , Raipur, in M. Cr. C. No. 25/91 on 23. 12. 1991 is restored. Petition allowed. .