JUDGMENT R.L. KHURANA, J.—By virtue of the present petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has approached this Court for the quashing of the orders dated 14.12.1993 of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (2), Paonta Sahib, whereby truck No. HP-09-0761 seized by the police in case F.I.R. No. 285/93 dated 22.8.1993 of Police Station Paonta, was ordered to be released on sapurdari Respondent No. 1 through her husband and attorney-Respondent No. 2. 2. Respondent No. 1, Smt. Leela Verma,.is the registered owner of truck bearing registration No. HP-09-761, having purchased the same under a hire-purchase agreement by obtaining a loan from State Bank of India, Matiyana. On 28.10.1991, she entered into an agreement to sell the said truck to one Tulsi Ram, the brother-in-law of Respondent No. 1. In terms of the agreement, the said Tulsi Ram was to pay/deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000 per month to/ with the State Bank of India. The possession of the truck though was delivered to Tulsi Ram, it was agreed that the same would be transferred on his name only when the entire loan amount stood liquidated by him. It appears that Respondent No. 2 on 8.9.1992, took possession of the truck when it was parked near a crusher. A report was made to the police at Theog by the said Tulsi Ram, on the basis of which a case came to be registered vide FIR No. 249/ 92, dated 21.9.1992. The truck came to be seized by the police 3. During the investigation of the said case, a compromise was arrived at between the parties on 24.9.1992. Under the compromise, petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 1,05,000 to Respondent No. 1 and agreed to pay Rs. 10,000 per month to the Bank towards the repayment of loan. The truck was transferred to the petitioner, who started plying the same as absolute owner thereof. 4. On 15.8.1993, the driver of the petitioner had given the truck for repairs at a workshop at Paonta. The same was illegally and forcibly removed by Respondent No. 2. A report was made to the police on the basis of which a case under Section 379. Indian Penal Code came to be registered on 22.8.1993, vide-FIR No. 285/93. 4. On 15.8.1993, the driver of the petitioner had given the truck for repairs at a workshop at Paonta. The same was illegally and forcibly removed by Respondent No. 2. A report was made to the police on the basis of which a case under Section 379. Indian Penal Code came to be registered on 22.8.1993, vide-FIR No. 285/93. The truck was seized by the police from the possession of Respondent No. 2 at village Bishri, Tehsil Theog. Respondent No. 1, through her husband and attorney applied under Section 457, Code of Criminal Procedure, for the release of the truck her favour. The learned Magistrate, upon consideration of the material placed before him vide the impugned order directed that the truck be released on Sapurdari in favour of Respondent No. 1, the registered owner. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by virtue of the present petition. 5. The earned Counsel for the respondents, at the very outset, has raised an objection with regard to the maintainability of the present petition It was contended that the order passed by the learned Magistrate, releasing the truck in favour of respondent No. 1 is a final order against which a revision lies under Section 397, Code of Criminal Procedure. The inherent powers of the Court, either under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, or under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, cannot be invoked for the purpose of setting aside of such an order Section 457, Code of Criminal Procedure, reads:— "457. Procedure by police upon seizure of property.— (1) Whenever the seizure of property by any police officer is reported to a Magistrate under the provisions of this Code, and such property is not produced before a criminal court during an inquiry or trial, the Magistrate may make such order as he thinks fit respecting the disposal of such property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property. (2) If the person so entitled is known, the Magistrate may order the property to be delivered to him on such conditions (if any) as the Magistrate thinks fit and if such person is unknown, the Magistrate may detain it and shall, in such case, issue a proclamation specifying the articles of which such property consists, and requiring any person who may have a claim thereto, to appear before him and establish his claim within six months from the date of such proclamation. 6. In Sardara Singh and another v. Nur Ahmed (1992 (1) Sim. L.C. 334), while dealing with the scope of Section 457, Code of Criminal Procedure, it was held by a learned single Judge of this Court:— "The trial Magistrate, under Section 457, Cr.P.C. is to make such orders as he thinks fit respecting the delivery of property which is not produced before him during inquiry or trial and to the person entitled to the possession thereof. The matter is one of discretion with the learned Magistrate which is, of course, a judicial discretion to be exercised on relevant considerations. The learned Magistrate is not required to make an elaborate inquiry at the stage when he is asked to pass an order under Section 457, Cr.P.C. Nevertheless, inquiry of a summary, nature is to be made by him with a view to determine as to who is the person entitled to the possession of the property." 7. In Parveen Kumar v. The State of Himachal Pradesh and another (1989) Cri. LJ. 2537), a question arose whether an order passed under Section 451, Code of Criminal Procedure, for custody and disposal of property pending trial, is an "interlocutory order" or a "final order" for the purpose of revision under Section 397, Code of Criminal Procedure. Such an order was held to be a "final order" revisable under Section 397, Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court observed:— "An application under Section 451 Cr.P.C. has to be decided by the Court after hearing the parties seeking the release of the property in question. The parties are allowed to adduce evidence and it is only after hearing them that the Court passes the order there by giving the custody of the property to one of them who may be adjudged by the Court to be best entitled for the same. The parties are allowed to adduce evidence and it is only after hearing them that the Court passes the order there by giving the custody of the property to one of them who may be adjudged by the Court to be best entitled for the same. To say that such an order is revisable by the Court on the termination of the proceedings or in between is no reason to call the order interlocutory order. Till such an order is made, it is final between the parties and the Magistrate cannot arbitrarily or without proper justification change the same during the course of the proceedings. The argument of the petitioner that such an order becomes final on the termination of the proceedings cannot be accepted because even that order is subject to determination by a Civil Court. Therefore, in the light o; the decision of the Supreme Court in Madhu Limayes case (1978 Cri.LJ. 165) (supra), it can be held that this kind of order is final between the parties deciding their entitlement to the property in question finally at that stage. Therefore, such an order is necessarily subject to revision by the Court and revision against the same is competent before a Court of Sessions. The view which I have taken has a support from 1981 Cr.LJ. 1529 (Andh Pra) Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. State and 1974 Cri.LJ 231 (Ishar Singh v. The State of Punjab). The argument of Sh. S.S. Kanwar on this Court, therefore, fails and is rejected." 8. Since, an order under Section 457, Code of Criminal Procedure, is to be passed on the basis of some inquiry and the parties are to be allowed I to adduce evidence, if any, as in the case of an order under Section 451, Code of Criminal Procedure, the order passed under Section 457, Code of Criminal Procedure would also be a final order against which a revision would lie under Section 397, Code of Criminal Procedure. Since a revision lies against an order passed under Section 457, Code of Criminal Procedure, inherent powers under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure or powers of superintendence under Article 227, Constitution of India, cannot be invoked for quashing/setting aside of such an order. Therefore, the present petition on the face of it is not maintainable. 9. Even on merits, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. Therefore, the present petition on the face of it is not maintainable. 9. Even on merits, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. Admittedly, the truck was seized by the police from the possession of Respondent No. 1, the registered owner thereof. The learned Magistrate, vide impugned order has directed the release of the truck in favour of Respondent No. 1. On similar facts, this Court in Parveen Kumars case (supra) and in Sardara Singhs case (supra), as also in Kali Ram v. Ramesh Chand and others (Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1041 of 1994, decided on 24.7.1995) had directed the release of the seized vehicle in favour of the registered owner. 10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the present case, it must be held that the order passed by the learned Magistrate does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety and the same does not call for any interference. Resultantly, the present petition fails and is dismissed accordingly. Petition dismissed. -