JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for non-petitioner No. 5. 2. This petition has been filed against the order dated 16.7.1992 passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandal (Bhilwara), whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate directed the petitioner to produce the compressor in the Court and further directed that the same be delivered to the heirs of Hash Mal and Devi Dutt. 3. In short the facts of the case are as follows : A compressor was given to the petitioner by Hash Mal, the husband of non-petitioner No. 5 on monthly rent of Rs. 3,000/-. After sometime a First Information Report was lodged by Hasti Mal against the petitioner alleging the commission of offence under section 406 IPC. During investigation the compressor was surrendered by the petitioner. After investigation the police submitted a final report under section 173 Cr.P.C. and mentioned therein that the dispute between the parties was of civil nature and it was relating to payment of money (rental). The learned Magistrate accepted the final report submitted by the Police. Shri Devi Dutt (non-petitioner No. 3) moved an application for obtaining the custody of the compressor on the ground that he had a share with Hasti Mal. Later on that application was not pressed by the counsel of Devi Dutt and, therefore, it was dismissed. 4. On 11.12.1991 the learned Judicial Magistrate gave the compressor in the custody of the petitioner subject to the condition that the petitioner would furnish 'supurdginama' of Rs. 25,000/- and personal bond of like amount and will produce the compressor at his own expense to the Court as and when called upon to do so. A perusal of the order dated 11.12.1991 shows that this order was passed under section 451 Cr.P.C. and the custody given by this order was on behalf of the Court so that the compressor may be kept properly. 5. After the acceptance of the final report the learned Judicial Magistrate passed the impugned order dated 16.7.1992 whereby he directed the petitioner Babulal to produce the compressor in the Court and further directed that the same be given to the legal heirs of Devi Dutt and Hasti Mal. In the impugned order the learned Judicial Magistrate observed that rent of the compressor which was due was more than Rs. 16,000/-. 6. In the impugned order the learned Judicial Magistrate observed that rent of the compressor which was due was more than Rs. 16,000/-. 6. In view of the facts of the case mentioned above, the petitioner is obviously not the owner of the compressor in dispute. He had obtained the compressor on monthly rent of Rs. 3,000/-, the learned counsel for non-petitioner No. 5 has admitted before this Court that according to the terms of agreement the owner (late Hasti Mal) was liable to bear the expenses incurred on the repairs of the compressor provided that notice was given to him. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that some repair of the compressor was got done by the petitioner and that amount is due against late Hastimal. 7. So far as the liabilities of the parties towards each other for the period before the surrender of compressor before the Police are concerned it was not within the jurisdiction of the learned Judicial Magistrate to have taken those liabilities into consideration. The husband of the non-petitioner No. 5 could have instituted appropriate proceedings for the arrears of rent and similarly if the petitioner was entitled to reimbursement of any amount incurred by him on the repairs of the compressor, he could have given a notice to the owner of the compressor according to the terms of the agreement and instituted appropriate proceedings for recovery/adjustment of that amount. Suffice it to say that the proceedings pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, was not competent for the Magistrate to have given any finding regarding the aforesaid amounts i.e. arrears of rental and the amount spent on repairs. 8. So far as the custody for the periods subsequent to 11.12.1991 is concerned, the petitioner-possessed the compressor in dispute under the orders of the Court and, therefore, the custody of the period subsequent to 11.12.1991 must be deemed to be the custody on behalf of the Court. The order dated 11.12.1991 does not indicate that any rent was payable by the petitioner during the period he possessed the compressor under the orders of the Court. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn my attention to the fact that non-petitioner No. 3 Devi Dutt had applied for custody of the compressor and later on his application was dismissed as not pressed. 10. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn my attention to the fact that non-petitioner No. 3 Devi Dutt had applied for custody of the compressor and later on his application was dismissed as not pressed. 10. The aforesaid fact does not appear to have any bearing on the powers of the Magistrate to pass the impugned order on 16.7.1992 because that application of non-petitioner No. 3 was merely for the purpose of obtaining interim custody of the compressor and that was not concerned with the passing of the final order by the acceptance of the final report. Conduct of the party may be pleaded as estoppel and an estoppel being a rule of evidence can estop a party from raising a plea which has already been given up or from proving a certain fact which the party may legally be estopped from proving according to the principle of estoppel, cannot be pleaded against the statute. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate to pass order according to law for the disposal of the property after the acceptance of the final report is in no way affected by the conduct of the parties. The obligation to pass a suitable order according to law is not reduced to any extent by not pressing an application moved by a party, for interim custody of the goods seized by the Police. If the act of not pressing the application affects and person's right or saves any person's right, these are the rights of the heirs of Hasti Mal who had rented the compressor to the petitioner. 11. It may be pointed out that according to the averments made by the parties the agreement by which the compressor was given to the petitioner on rent was executed between Hasti Mal and Babu Lal and Devi Dutt was not a party to it. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the non-petitioner No. 5 have admitted that now there is no dispute between the petitioner and the non-petitioner No. 5 about any amount. The learned Judicial Magistrate has also observed in his order that prima facie no amount is payable by either party to the other. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts there is no necessity to interfere in the impugned order dated 16.7.1992 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mandal (Bhilwara). The impugned order is, therefore, confirmed. The learned Judicial Magistrate has also observed in his order that prima facie no amount is payable by either party to the other. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts there is no necessity to interfere in the impugned order dated 16.7.1992 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mandal (Bhilwara). The impugned order is, therefore, confirmed. The petitioner is given 30 days of time to produce the compressor before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mandal (Bhilwara).The petition is disposed of accordingly.Petition dismissed. *******