ORDER : M.B. Shah, J. Leave to appeal is granted. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The appellant claims to be the registered owner of Truck No. HR 38 BG 6131. The said truck was seized by the police for alleged non-production of the papers of the motor vehicle. The case of the appellant is that Respondent 2 is merely one of the guarantors for repayment of loan taken by the appellant from the bank for purchase of the truck. 3. The appellant approached the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Palwal, with application for giving interim custody of the truck to him as the registered owner. The Judicial Magistrate by his order dated 28-11-1999 rejected the prayer of the appellant for release of the truck to him; instead the learned Magistrate directed that the truck be released in favour of Respondent 2, the guarantor. The second application for the same purpose filed by the appellant was rejected on 23-12-1999 whereupon the appellant approached the Sessions Judge, Faridabad. The Sessions Judge by his order dated 11-2-2000 modified the order of the Magistrate and directed release of the truck on superdari to the appellant. The Sessions Judge, however, imposed condition on the appellant that he would first get Respondent 2 guarantor and his wife exonerated from the guarantee furnished by them to the bank. It is only on fulfilment of such condition that the appellant was held entitled to the interim custody of the truck with a further condition that he would furnish security in the sum of rupees four lakhs. 4. Aggrieved by the conditional order of release of the truck on superdari, the appellant approached the High Court by petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which had been rejected by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana by the impugned order dated 14-1-2002. 5. After hearing the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties we find that the conditional order of the Sessions Court dated 11-2-2000 which has been confirmed by the High Court cannot be sustained. The Magistrate in giving interim custody of the seized truck was exercising his power under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. After hearing the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties we find that the conditional order of the Sessions Court dated 11-2-2000 which has been confirmed by the High Court cannot be sustained. The Magistrate in giving interim custody of the seized truck was exercising his power under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The inter se civil liabilities of the appellant as registered owner of that truck, the bank as financier and the guarantors who furnished guarantee bond for repayment of loan was not the subject-matter relevant for granting interim custody of the seized vehicle. 6. It is not in dispute that the appellant on the basis of loan advanced by the bank had purchased the truck and was the registered owner, Respondent 2 and his wife were merely the guarantors. The truck was seized by the police for the alleged offence under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The dispute concerning civil liability of the registered owner towards the loan obtained from the bank on guarantee bond furnished jointly by Respondent 2 and his wife was wholly irrelevant in the criminal case pending for trial before the Magistrate for alleged offence under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and other penal provisions, if any. 7. For the aforesaid reason we allow this appeal. The impugned order of the Sessions Court dated 11-2-2000 and of the High Court confirming the same by order dated 14-1-2002 to the extent of imposing condition on the appellant to get the guarantors exonerated towards loan obtained from the bank on the vehicle is hereby set aside. It is directed that the seized truck in question be released to the appellant registered owner on his furnishing security in the sum of rupees four lakhs to the satisfaction of the trial Magistrate. Appeal allowed.