JUDGMENT C. R. DASH, J. - This petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. arises out of a revisional order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar in Criminal Revision No. 12 of 2012 confirming the order passed by learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar on a petition filed under Section 452, Cr.P.C concerning a house. 2. At the outset, I feel persuaded to say here that in view of Section 454 Cr.P.C. learned Sessions Judge should not have entertained this revision, as an appeal lies against an order passed under Section 452, Cr.P.C. 3. The property involved in the case is a house bearing No.HIG-1/55, B.D.A. Colony, Kapila Prasad, Bhubaneswar. One Sri Sila Siv Narayan was the original owner of the aforesaid house. He had purchased the house in question on allotment by the Bhubaneswar Development Authority ('B.D.A.' for short).While he was in possession of the house, he executed a-general power of attorney in favour of Sunil Kumar Mohanty (present opposite party No.4) authorizing him to deal with the property. Sunil Kumar Mohanty (present opposite party No.4) on behalf of Sri Sila Siv Narayan, mortgaged the house with the Union Bank of India, Janapath Branch, Bhubaneswar to secure loan of Rs. 20,00,000 (Rupees twenty lakhs). Manas Ranjan Rayjagdev (present opposite party No.5) was a tenant in respect of the aforesaid house being inducted on behalf of Sri Sila Siv Narayan. Said Manas Ranjan Rayjagdev defaulted in payment of rent. He also sublet one part of the house and did not pay the rent even after being approached. Some friends and henchmen of aforesaid Sunil Kumar Mohanty including Manoj @ Anil Kumar Mohanty (present opposite party No, 2), who happens to be the brother of Sunil Kumar Mohanty (opposite party No.4), forcibly entered into the house in absence of Manas Ranjan Rayjagdev (present opp. party No, 5) and removed the household articles to take the house in their possession. 4. Aforesaid Manas Ranjan Rayjagdev (present opposite party No.5) lodged FIR in the Airfield Police Station alleging offence under Sections 448/294/506/380/34, IPC against Manoj @ Anil Kumar Mohanty (present opposite party No.2) and another. On the basis of the report, G.R.Case No.1050 of 2002 was initiated against the culprits in the Court of S.D.J.M" Bhubaneswar. The Investigating Officer filed the petition dated 13.04.2002 and moved the Court of learned SDJM, Bhubaneswar for appointment of receiver in respect of the aforesaid house. On the basis of the report, G.R.Case No.1050 of 2002 was initiated against the culprits in the Court of S.D.J.M" Bhubaneswar. The Investigating Officer filed the petition dated 13.04.2002 and moved the Court of learned SDJM, Bhubaneswar for appointment of receiver in respect of the aforesaid house. Said petition was rejected by learned SDJM directing the Investigating Officer to put a lock in the house and deposit the key of the lock in a sealed cover in Court and keep another key with himself. Such an order was passed on 17.04.2002. Subsequently Manas Ranjan Rayjagdev (Opposite party No.5) and Sunil Kumar Mohanty (present opposite party No.4) filed two petitions under Section 457, Cr.P.C. claiming possession, of the house and prayed to deliver the house in their possession. Learned SDJM, Bhubaneswar vide order dated 10.05.2002 rejected both, the petitions and left the matter open for the parties to agitate the issue before the competent Civil Court. The matter was carried out to this Court in Criminal Misc. Case No. 859 of 2002. This Court vide order dated 02.04.2003 dismissed the Criminal Misc. Case and confirmed the orders of lower Courts. 5. While matter stood thus, the Union Bank of India, Janapath Branch, Bhubaneswar in exercise of power under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ("SARFAESI Act, 2002" for short) took steps an auctioned the house in favour of one Pranati Samal, as the loanee-(Sri Sila Siv Narayan) could not repay the loan amount and his account became Non-Performing Asset ('NPA'for short). The Registered Sale' Deed in favour of aforesaid Pranati Samal'was executed on 26.08.2008. Later on 08.09.2009, vide a Registered Sale Deed, Pranati Samal sold the house in question in favour of Smt. Jayashri Singh (the present petitioner). It is pertinent to mention here that all the aforesaid 'transactions including purchase by present petitioner Jayashri Singh happened while the order dated 17.4.2002 of the learned SDJM, Bhubaneswar was in force and the house was under lock and key by aforesaid Court's order. 6. When the present petitioner Smt. Jayashri Singh went to take possession of the house, she could know about the lock put in the house by the Airfield Police Station and pendency of the G.R. Case involving the house in question. 6. When the present petitioner Smt. Jayashri Singh went to take possession of the house, she could know about the lock put in the house by the Airfield Police Station and pendency of the G.R. Case involving the house in question. On enquiry, she came to know that the G.R. Case had ended in acquittal since long, but no order has had been passed regarding disposal of the property (the house). She approached the aforesaid Court of the SDJM in the present petition under Section 452, Cr.P.C. praying therein to release the key in her favour. Learned SDJM, Bhubaneswar rejected the said prayer of the petitioner on the following grounds: (I) That, he has no jurisdiction to revise his earlier order, as the present petition under Section 452, Cr.P.C. is the third in series; (It is beneficial to mention here that, earlier two petitions were admittedly dealt with under Section 457, Cr.P.C.) (II) that, the Court has no jurisdiction to decide complicated issue of title and possession, which requires consideration of evidence and its appreciation; (III) that, the order passed by the Court was challenged before the High Court in Criminal Misc. Case No. 859 of 2002 unsuccessfully leaving no scope for the Trial Court to take any other view; and (IV) the judgment in the G.R. case passed by the Trial Court has been challenged before the High Court in Criminal Revision No. 1195 of 2008 and the matter is pending. 7. The present petitioner thereafter, instead of filing an appeal under Section 454, Cr.P.C. filed the revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar. Learned Sessions Judge taking almost the same view dismissed that revision. Aforesaid revisional order is impugned in this Criminal Misc. Case. 8. Present opposite party No.5, who is the informant in the G.R. Case, appeared and contested in the present case. Though Sunil Kumar Mohanty has entered appearance, no substantial contention was raised on his behalf in course of hearing of the Criminal Misc. Case. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no dispute in the present case, so far as claim of the present petitioner Jayashri Singh regarding her ownership is concerned. The present opposite party No.5 had not contested the proceeding. before the learned Trial Court. Case. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no dispute in the present case, so far as claim of the present petitioner Jayashri Singh regarding her ownership is concerned. The present opposite party No.5 had not contested the proceeding. before the learned Trial Court. He also did not approach the Civil Court in time despite order passed by learned SDJM and confirmed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Case No. 859 of 2002. From the order sheet of the learned Magistrate in Annexure-9. it is found that except the State, none of the present opposite parties was impleaded as opposite party either in the proceeding under Section 452, Cr.P.C. before the SDJM or in the revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Khurda. However, as found from the order sheet of the learned Magistrate, Manoj @ Anil Kumar Mohanty (present opposite party No.2) had also filed a petition under Section 452, Cr.P.C. praying therein to open the house in his presence and to effect inventory and supply copy of the inventory list to him and to return back the articles which are there in the house, to him. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the property having been purchased by Pranati Samal in a competent proceeding under the SARFAESI Act; and said Pranati Samal having sold the property later on in favour of the present petitioner by a Registered Sale Deed, the present petitioner is entitled to possession of the house: It is further submitted that the order sheet of the Magistrate, especially orders dated 17.4.2002 and 10.05.2002 show that by the time the G.R. case was initiated, Manas Ranjan Rayjagdev (opposite party No.5) had already been dispossessed and he being admittedly a tenant already dispossessed since long, he has no claim of ownership or possession over the house at present, especially when he did not challenge such dispossession in a competent Civil Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that if any of the opposite parties has any right on the property in the house, the petitioner is ready and willing to return such movable properties in favour of those opposite parties on Court's order on proper inventory and identification. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that if any of the opposite parties has any right on the property in the house, the petitioner is ready and willing to return such movable properties in favour of those opposite parties on Court's order on proper inventory and identification. Learned counsel appearing for the present opposite party No.5 (Manas Ranjan Rayjagdev) submits that the Court could not depart from normal rule and the house in question should be delivered in favour of opposite party No.5 (Manas Ranjan Rayjagdev), as he has been illegally dispossessed from the house. He relies on the case of N.Madhavan v. State of Kerala, AIR 1979 SC 1829 and some other decisions of this Court to substantiate his contention. He lays stress on referring the parties to the competent Civil Court, if the house cannot be delivered in possession of Manas Ranjan Rayjagdev (present opp. party No.5). 11. In the aforesaid factual matrix, if the issue is addressed, an analysis of the provisions in Section 452, Cr.P.C. shows that the Section comes into operation only on the conclusion of an enquiry or a trial in a criminal Court. They refer to four classes of property or document, namely: (I) Produced before the Court, or (II) in the custody of the Court, or (III) regarding which an offence is committed, or/and (IV) which is used in the commission of offence. And this property may be disposed of in any of the four ways: (a) destruction; (b) confiscation; (c) delivery to any person entitled to its possession or/and (d) otherwise. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N.Madhavan v. State of Kerala, AIR 1979 SC 1829 , held that when after an enquiry or trial the accused is discharged or acquitted, the Court should normally restore the property, which is produced before it or which is in its custody to the person from whose custody it was taken. Departure from this rule of practice is not to be lightly made when there is no dispute or doubt that the property was seized from the custody of such accused and 'belonged to him. Same is the view of this Court in the case of Gopinath Naik v. State of Orissa, AIR 1957 Orissa 287. In the aforesaid case, the house in question was in joint possession of the accused and his son. Same is the view of this Court in the case of Gopinath Naik v. State of Orissa, AIR 1957 Orissa 287. In the aforesaid case, the house in question was in joint possession of the accused and his son. Accused showed the places of concealment of stolen articles in the house. The property could not be proved to be stolen property, in such circumstance the currency notes seized at the instance of the accused was ordered to be released in favour of the person (petitioner's father), from whom they were recovered. Same is the view of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pushkar Singh v. State of Madhya Bharat and another, AIR 1953 SC 508 . In that case money found in possession of the accused was alleged to be the money stolen from the complainant. As the money found was belonging to the accused and not the complaint, in course of trial, the accused was acquitted. Hon'ble Supreme Court ordered for payment of money to the accused by holding that payment of money in such circumstances cannot be made in favour of the complainant unless it is established that offence was committed in respect of the sum. From the analysis of the provisions in the section, it is further clear that the nature of proceeding contemplated under the provision is more a civil proceeding in nature than a criminal proceeding. 12. Where, however, a serious dispute on the question of title arises, the remedy is the Civil Court and not the criminal Court under Section 452, Cr. P. C., as the question of title to property cannot be satisfactorily decided by a Criminal Court. From the ruling in the case of Gopinath Naik, supra (AIR 1957 Orissa 287), it is also clear that if no offence is proved in respect of property produced in Court, the proper order the Court may pass is to restore the property to the person from whom it was originally taken. It cannot detain the property until its title is declared by a Civil Court. This Court in the case of Kulamani Swain v. Ghanashyam Sahu 52 (1981) CLT 445 held thus: .".:....This provision clearly states that the Trial Court has to order for disposal or handing over the property to any person who claims to be entitled to possession thereof and the Court has to be satisfied to that effect. This Court in the case of Kulamani Swain v. Ghanashyam Sahu 52 (1981) CLT 445 held thus: .".:....This provision clearly states that the Trial Court has to order for disposal or handing over the property to any person who claims to be entitled to possession thereof and the Court has to be satisfied to that effect. It appears that this clear provision of law has not been followed and for ends of justice it is necessary that an enquiry is to be made when the informant has put forward his claim to this gold ornaments." This Court again in Sarat Chandra Padhi v. Bijay Kumar Bastarai and another, 70 (1990) CLT 669 held that as there is conflicting claims, the seized property is to be retained in the custody of the Court till an adjudication of title by the Civil Court. 13. It is however found from the provision on its cursory reading that Sub-section (1) of Section 452, Cr.P.C. enables the Court to deliver the property to any person, who in the judgment of the Court is entitled to possess it. Such a person need not be the owner but is one who came into possession of the property in a lawful manner. According to me, the burden however of establishing the legality of possession should be on the person claiming possession and the other party opposing such a claim should not be asked to prove the contrary. In other words, the person, who claims to take possession of the property must satisfy the Court about his entitlement for which purpose he shall have to establish that he was or is in lawful or rightful possession of the property in question. The consideration before the Court in the event of any controversy is the entitlement of a person to possess and, of course, ends of justice. A non-party before the Criminal Court, who might have come to lawful possession of the property, cannot be debarred from moving the Criminal Court under relevant provisions of Chapter 34 of the Cr.P.C. Both Subsections (1) confers wide discretion to the Court. The Court should hold an enquiry to decide the question of entitlement to possess the object. A non-party before the Criminal Court, who might have come to lawful possession of the property, cannot be debarred from moving the Criminal Court under relevant provisions of Chapter 34 of the Cr.P.C. Both Subsections (1) confers wide discretion to the Court. The Court should hold an enquiry to decide the question of entitlement to possess the object. Enquiry is to direct the property to be given to that person to whom it appears to belong or to allow it to continue in the possession of the person in whose possession it was found or to make some other order which the Court deems fit having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. The Criminal Court, as a matter of practice, cannot shrug its shoulders and direct the parties to approach the Civil Court, unless there is serious dispute on the question of title over the property. And the Criminal Court should use its legal acumen to recognize a fake dispute to dismiss the same in order to aid the one who came into possession of the property in a lawful manner. 14. Both the learned Courts below, in the present case, have held that on earlier two occasions the claim for return of the key of the house having been rejected under Section 457, Cr.P.C. it is not proper to pass any order under Section 452, Cr.P.C. In this connection, to find an answer, we have to look' at Chapter 34 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which deals with disposal of property. In that Chapter, there is a trichotomy in the sense that where the property has been seized by the police but not produced, before the Court, the power to dispose it of is covered by Section 457. Where the property has been seized and/or otherwise produced before the Court, the manner to dispose of such property is covered by Section 451. If the question of disposal arises after the enquiry or trial in a criminal Court is concluded, the disposal of property involved in the case is governed by Section 452. The ambit of Sections 457 and 452 are different and in the present case the nature of dispute between the parties before the Court in the proceeding under Section 457 was also different. The ambit of Sections 457 and 452 are different and in the present case the nature of dispute between the parties before the Court in the proceeding under Section 457 was also different. Before the Court under Section 457, Cr.P.C. the present opposite party No.5 Manas Ranjan Rayjagdev was a tenant under the Power of Attorney holder Sunil Kumar Mohanty and he and said Sunil Kumar Mohanty (opp. party No.4) were in litigating term. A claim was put forth that present opposite party No.5 Manas Ranjan Rayjagdev had entered into an agreement with the original owner Sri Sila Siv Narayan for sale of the property in his favour, and on the basis of such agreement he was in possession of the property in question and, therefore, he is entitled to get possession of the same under Section 457, Cr.P.C. The investigation reveals that aforesaid Manas Ranjan Rayjagdev (present O.P. 5) failed to pay the house rent as tenant and also sublet a part of the house to one Arun Paltasing, for which he was vacated forcibly from that house by the henchmen of Sunil Kumar Mohanty (present O.P. No. 4). In view of such claim, the Trial Court as well as this Court had directed the parties to approach the Civil Court to establish the question of title. Now, however, the question is different and the consideration is also different and a third party, i.e. the present petitioner Jayashri Singh has come into picture by lawful purchase of the property from one Pranati Samal, who being the highest bidder was settled with the property by the concerned Bank in a proceeding under the SARFAESI Act. The original owner is no more in picture, he having lost ground by virtue of the proceeding under the SARFAESI Act. The original owner having been relegated to non-entity so far as the property is concerned, Sunil Kumar Mohanty (present O.P.4.) the power of attorney holder cannot possibly be having any claim over the property. The claim of the present opposite party No.5 over the property under an agreement to sell in between him and the original owner Sri Sila Siv Narayan does not survive now after the proceeding under the SARFAESI Act. In view of the changed circumstances, it becomes the duty of the Criminal Court to hold an enquiry and find out who is entitled to possession of the property now in question. In view of the changed circumstances, it becomes the duty of the Criminal Court to hold an enquiry and find out who is entitled to possession of the property now in question. For the said purpose, learned Trial Court can look into various documents and prima facie title of the present petitioner and others and after giving opportunity of being heard to all the parties concerned in the enquiry held for the purpose, the question of entitlement to possession should be decided without relegating the parties to the Civil Court for establishment of their title in such a situation. In view of the supervening circumstance, the property cannot also be ordered to be restored to either the original owner or the tenant dispossessed long since. If any party claim any right over any movable property in the house, the same be returned to him on proper inventory after due enquiry. If there is, however, any serious dispute regarding the title over the property, the Criminal Court, by reasoned order, may ask the parties to establish their right in the Civil Court. 15. The matter is accordingly remitted back to learned SDJM, Bhubaneswar for disposal afresh in accordance with law and in accordance with the observations made supra. The matter be disposed of within a period of four months from the date of appearance of all the parties before the Court. The L.C.R., if called for and received, be sent back forthwith to the Trial Court. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of. CRLMC disposed of.