ORDER Crl. A. No. 169 of 1996 1. One Mahendra Pratap Singh who was private secretary to late Shri Madhav Rao Scindia lodged a complaint before the police alleging that certain valuable articles kept in the Scindia Museum were stolen and attempt was being made to smuggle them out of India. Pursuant to the complaint there was an inquiry and a criminal case was registered. Various articles alleged to have been stolen were recovered by the police from Rani Mahal occupied by the members of late Rajmata Vijaya Raje Scindia. The criminal case was ultimately withdrawn and the Sessions Judge by his order dated 24-1-1991 directed that the various articles recovered by the police be handed over to the Scindia Museum situated in Jai Vilas Palace in Gwalior. 2. The order passed by the Sessions Judge was challenged before the High Court and the High Court confirmed the order passed by the Sessions Judge. In the present appeal the matter in controversy relates only to the disposal of the articles seized by the police during investigation. 3. The counsel for the appellants contended that these articles were recovered from Rani Mahal occupied by the appellants herein and therefore after the withdrawal of the case these articles should have been handed over to the appellants. It is submitted that the withdrawal of the prosecution proves that allegations made in the complaint were false and, therefore, the articles should have been returned to the party from whom they were recovered. The counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Manipat Finance Corpn. Ltd. v. T. Bangarappal and Brijendra Singh v. Brij Kumar Gupta2 Both the cases relate to disposal of motor vehicle involved in a hire-purchase agreement. In the instant case articles alleged to have been stolen are valuable items and some of them are antiques, the value of which was not assessed by any competent person. Moreover, admittedly, there are civil litigations pending between the parties in respect of the ownership of these properties. When the prosecution is withdrawn ordinarily the articles have to be returned to the person from whom they were recovered, but the court can consider various other aspects and can pass appropriate order for disposal of the matter. 4. Moreover, admittedly, there are civil litigations pending between the parties in respect of the ownership of these properties. When the prosecution is withdrawn ordinarily the articles have to be returned to the person from whom they were recovered, but the court can consider various other aspects and can pass appropriate order for disposal of the matter. 4. We do not think that it is just and proper that these articles shall now be handed over to the appellants herein as disputes regarding title and ownership are still pending before competent courts. Hence, we do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal fails and is dismissed. Crt. A. No. 168 of 1996 5. The complainant in a criminal case is challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh passed under Section 482 CrPC. According to the complainant she was in occupation of a house Hiranban Kothi and on 13-8-1983, she was away from her residence and it is alleged that sixteen persons came to her residence with arms and other weapons and took away the articles from her residence. It is alleged that these accused persons used force in taking away the articles. The Special Judge appointed under the M.P. Dakaiti aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981 took the complaint on file and statements of six witnesses were recorded. Based on the allegations made in the complaint and statements given by the witnesses, summons were issued to all the sixteen accused persons. The first accused, late Shri Madhav Rao Scindia filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 1862 of 1985 under Section 482 CrPC. Similarly the third accused Mahendra Pratap Singh filed Crl. Revision Petition No. 185 of 1985 Criminal miscellaneous case and criminal revision petition were considered with other connected matters and a common order was passed and the learned Single Judge quashed all the complaints with a common order and that is challenged before us. 6. We heard the appellants counsel and also the counsel for Mahendra Pratap Singh. At the outset we must say that the first accused Shri Madhav Rao Scindia is no more, therefore, we are not concerned with the order passed in Crl. Misc. Case No. 1862 of 1985 so far as it relates to him. 6. We heard the appellants counsel and also the counsel for Mahendra Pratap Singh. At the outset we must say that the first accused Shri Madhav Rao Scindia is no more, therefore, we are not concerned with the order passed in Crl. Misc. Case No. 1862 of 1985 so far as it relates to him. As regards the other accused persons, it is pertinent to say that they had not challenged the proceedings pursuant to the complaint. If these accused persons were really aggrieved by the issuance of summons against them, they should have approached the High Court and challenged the same in appropriate proceedings. The learned Single Judge was not justified in quashing the entire complaint. As regards the order passed in Crl. Revisiou No. 185 of 1985, we have closely perused the common order wherein no reasons have been given as to why the Single Judge quashed the complaint as against the third accused Mahendra Pratap Singh. The learned Single Judge should have given reasons as to why the Special Judge erred in taking cognizance of the offence as against Mahendra Pratap Singh. Therefore, the order passed in Crl. Revision No. 185 of 1985 is set aside. 7. The appeal is accordingly disposed of and the Special Judge is directed to proceed with the complaint case in accordance with law. 8. The counsel for Mahendra Pratap Singh pointed out that the complaint was filed as early as in 1983 and serious prejudice would be caused to his client at this stage in case further proceedings are taken in the complaint case. We make it clear that all the accused persons including Mahendra Pratap Singh would be at liberty to raise all objections, including the delay in prosecution, while defending the case.