JUDGMENT 1. - In Cr. Case No. 375/1994 pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur District, Jaipur the trial Magistrate vide order dated 29.10.1998 refused to hand over Jeep No. RJ-14-C-3875 on supurdginama to Hanuman Sahai. He also refused to hand over the vehicle to Bhanwarlal Sharma and present the vehicle is lying at the police station without any use. These petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been directed against the order dated 29.10.1998. 2. Briefly stated, Bhanwarlal filed a complaint before learned trial Magistrate to the effect that an agreement between him and Jagdish and Ramgopal took place and the vehicle was sold to him. He was to pay a sum of Rs. 1,52,000/- out of which an amount of Rs. 1,11,000/- was paid and the balance was to be paid by 2.6.1994. Agreement was executed on 16.8.1991. When the vehicle was standing at bus stand Malpura Gate, Sanganer on 2.6.1994 accused persons Jagdish, Ramgopal, Madanlal and Daluram drove the vehicle by duplicate key without permission of the driver of the complainant and took to their village Harota. The complainant contacted Jagdish and Ramgopal who assured to return the vehicle after some time. Later on the complainant was assured to hand over the vehicle on 19.6.1994 and when he went to take prossession of the vehicle on that date, he was surrounded by them, was taken to Radha Swami Bagh Chomu, he was robbed of his money and watch etc. The vehicle was not handed over and instead offences under various sections were committed. The complaint was forwarded to the police station Sanganer where a case under various sections including Section 379 I PC was registered, investigated and ultimately challan was submitted which is pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. 3. It is found from the case file that on 26.7.1995 this Court ordered to deliver the vehicle on supurdginama to Ramgopal/Jagdish but the conditions of supurdginama were not complied with and hence the same was forfeited. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that now the vehicle is registered in the name of the petitioner as the registration documents shows that the Registering Authority, Jaipur registered the vehicle in the name of Hanuman Sahai. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the vehicle is lying at the police station where there are no arrangements to keep it safely and it is being spoiled. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the vehicle is lying at the police station where there are no arrangements to keep it safely and it is being spoiled. There is no dispute to these facts. He also submitted that the registered owner is the best entitled person to obtain the vehicle. Reliance has been placed on various rulings of the Court in which the vehicles were handed over the registered owner. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for Bhanwarlal Sharma vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the vehicle should be handed over to his client. He relied on Trilok Singh and others v. Satya Deo Tripathi, AIR 1979 SC page 850 in which it has been held that if such a case where purchase of truck under hire purchase agreement was made and there was a default clause and the truck was seized by financier, dispute raised was purely of civil nature and criminal proceedings initiated was an abuse of the process of court and deserved to be quashed. This ruling does not apply to the facts of this case. 6. I have considered the rival contentions. Presently the vehicle is lying at the police station where there are no arrangements for proper custody and the vehicle is being damaged. In my view it is a national wastage and the vehicle should not be allowed to be damaged in this way while it is lying at the police station. There is plethora of judgments of this court that a vehicle can be handed over to its registered owner. Rather in this very case this Court had handed over the vehicle to Jagdish and Ramgopal on 26.7.1995 where they were the registered owners of the vehicle. But their supurdginama was cancelled due to the fact that vehicle was further transferred by them without permission of the Court. Presently it is not disputed that the vehicle stood transferred in the name of Hanuman Sahai as it is evident from registration certificate. Therefore, in my view the vehicle can very well be handed over to him on supurdginama. It will be an ad interim order till trial last. Ultimately the final order will be passed at the time of judgment by learned Magistrate. Till then the vehicle can be handed over on supurdginama to Hanuman Sahai. 7. Therefore, in my view the vehicle can very well be handed over to him on supurdginama. It will be an ad interim order till trial last. Ultimately the final order will be passed at the time of judgment by learned Magistrate. Till then the vehicle can be handed over on supurdginama to Hanuman Sahai. 7. In view of above discussion, the petition of Hanuman Sahai is hereby allowed and it is ordered that the Jeep No. RJ-14-C-3875 lying at police station Sanganer shall be given to Hanuman Sahai under the provisions of Section 457 Cr.RC. on furnishing a supurdginama of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lacs) with a surety of the like amount with the conditions that he will not transfer the vehicle to anybody during the pendency of Cr. Case No. 375/1994, he will not change the condition of the vehicle without permission of the court and the Registering Authority, Jaipur shall be informed by learned Magistrate that the vehicle shall not be transferred in the name of any other person till the decision of the aforesaid criminal case. In case any of the conditions of supurdginama will be violated, the vehicle will be seized and taken in custody by the court. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 3/99 is dismissed.Petition No. 1321 of 1998 allowed, Petition No. 3 of 1999 dismissed. *******