Judgment :- 1. By consent, the revision itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner is a financier and it had advanced loan to the 2nd respondent herein for the purchase of the vehicle, namely, TATA SUMO GOLD. The 2nd respondent after availing the loan from the petitioner has also purchased the said vehicle bearing Registration No.TN58 H 2615. According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent has not paid dues on due dates and they have also initiated steps to possess the vehicle. At that juncture, the first respondent has registered a case in Crime No.1572 of 2013 under Section 102 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the residents of Vinayaga Nagar 2nd street, K.K.Nagar, has informed the jurisdiction police about the vehicle remained parked for 10 days and went to the site at 12.45 p.m. on 24.12.2013 and seized the vehicle and thereafter brought it to the police station and registered the above said case. 3. The petitioner being the financier of the vehicle has filed a petition before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, No.VI, Madurai for return of the vehicle contending that the 2nd respondent has availed the loan for purchase of the said vehicle and since he has failed to pay the dues, they are having the right to repossess the vehicle. The 2nd respondent, who has availed the loan, also expressed no objection for taking possession of the vehicle by the petitioner. The lower Court, after taking note of the above facts and circumstances, has passed the impugned order dated 19.01.2015 in Cr.M.P.No.2038 of 2014, has ordered release of the vehicle subject to certain conditions and one of the condition is that the petitioner/financier shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-. The petitioner aggrieved by the conditions imposed for return of the vehicle, has filed this revision. 4. The petitioner aggrieved by the conditions imposed for return of the vehicle, has filed this revision. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that admittedly no crime has been registered and since the vehicle was found abandoned, the said fact was informed to the first respondent, the above said case came to be registered and the vehicle was also seized and during the course of hearing of the petition for return of property, the person availed the loan, namely, the 2nd respondent has also expressed no objection for return of the vehicle and therefore, the conditions imposed by the lower Court are not sustainable and prays for setting aside the order and return of the vehicle without any conditions. 5. Per contra, Mr.C.Ramesh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, would contend that since the vehicle was found abandoned for nearly 10 days, on getting information, it was seized and a case came to be registered and the lower Court, has taken note of the facts and circumstances, has imposed the conditions. 6. This Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the typed set of documents. 7. It is not in serious dispute that the 2nd respondent has availed the loan and purchased the above said vehicle and could not able to pay the dues due to some reason and left the vehicle and on information by the residents of the locality that the vehicle was abandoned, the first respondent took necessary steps and seized the vehicle and brought it to the police station and thereafter registered a case under Section 102 Cr.P.C. 8. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, no crime alleging serious allegations have been registered and the 2nd respondent, who has availed the loan, has also expressed no objection to enable the revision petitioner to repossess the vehicle and in the light of the above facts and circumstances, the conditions imposed by the lower Court, in the considered opinion of the Court, are not necessary. 9. In the result, the Criminal Revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 19.01.2015 made in Crl.M.P.No.2038 of 2014 is set aside and the vehicle is ordered to be returned subject to the conditions that the petitioner shall furnish xerox copies of the documents pertaining to the said vehicle to the respondent police.