JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - This criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: "It is, therefore, most respectfully and humbly prayed that this Revision Petition may kindly be allowed and order/Judgment dated 26.6.2020 passed by the learned Addl Sessions Judge, Sumerpur, District Pali, in Crl. Revision Petition No. 23/2019 may kindly be ordered to be quashed and set aside and the order dated 23.07.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sumerpur, District Pali in Crl. Misc. Case No. 1588/2019 titled as State v. Ganesha Ram for the offence U/s. 39/192, 3/181, 56/192, 146/196 of MV Act may kindly be ordered to be upheld in the interest of justice." 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 18.06.2019, one Kuka Ram, Head Constable posted at Sanderao Police Station, District Pali, in the performance of his duty, at about 10:00 a.m. stopped a truck bearing Registration No. RJ 19 GE 6033, being driven by one Ganesha Ram, whereupon the said Ganesha Ram was asked to produce the valid and effective permit, insurance document of the vehicle, registration certificate and other requisite documents, which he could not produce; whereupon the vehicle was seized; thereafter, a charge-sheet has been filed against the said driver Ganesha Ram for the offences under Sections 39/192, 3/181, 56/192 and 146/196 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Ganesha Ram pleaded not guilty of the charges against him and was convicted for the said offences, but he was released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of offenders Act by the learned trial court. 2.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that thereafter, the present petitioner-Narain Singh and respondent No. 2-Nizamuddin filed separate applications for release of the aforementioned vehicle (truck) on supurdginama, whereupon notice was issued to the respondent No. 3-Bank. 2.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that thereafter, the present petitioner-Narain Singh and respondent No. 2-Nizamuddin filed separate applications for release of the aforementioned vehicle (truck) on supurdginama, whereupon notice was issued to the respondent No. 3-Bank. After that, the learned trial court, upon hearing the parties, ordered for release of the said vehicle in favour of the present petitioner vide order dated 23.07.2019; aggrieved thereby, the respondent No. 2 filed a revision petition before the learned revisional court, which was allowed vide the impugned order dated 26.06.2020, and while quashing and setting aside the order dated 23.07.2019 passed by the learned trial court, the matter was remanded back to the learned trial court to pass appropriate orders afresh, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the parties, as also keeping into consideration all the relevant documents placed on record before it. 2.2. Learned counsel also submitted that aggrieved by the impugned order dated 26.06.2020, the present revision petition has been preferred, claiming the aforementioned reliefs. 2.3. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned trial court has passed the order dated 23.07.2019, while keeping into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and also duly appreciating the record of the case. 2.4. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle in question; on one hand respondent No. 2 himself has preferred the application for release of vehicle on supurdginama, while on the other hand, he has preferred the revision petition before the learned court below, as authorized representative of one Sandeep Desai, thereby making his own averments self contradictory, and thus, the respondent No. 2 has not approached the learned court below with clean hands, as he had not made complete disclosure regarding his claim before the learned court below, while preferring the revision petition. 2.5. Learned counsel further submitted that the present case is a glaring example of the bank officials and police officials being in hand in glove with the respondent No. 2, whereby not only, a fraud was being played with the petitioner, but the said vehicle was put to auction, just to make the respondent No. 2 as its registered owner. 2.5.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the present case is a glaring example of the bank officials and police officials being in hand in glove with the respondent No. 2, whereby not only, a fraud was being played with the petitioner, but the said vehicle was put to auction, just to make the respondent No. 2 as its registered owner. 2.5.1. Learned counsel also submitted that the matter was reported by the petitioner to the concerned Police Commissioner and a case was filed by him before the competent consumer court, which is still pending before it. 2.6. Learned counsel further submitted that the claim of the respondent No. 2 is also under a grave suspicion, looking into the fact that the said Sandeep Desai has not preferred any revision petition before the learned court below, neither has he made any claim in regard to the vehicle in question and nor had he appeared ever before the learned court below in this case. 2.7. Learned counsel thus submitted that the learned revisional court, while passing the impugned order and setting aside the perfectly justified order passed by the learned trial court, has not taken into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and has not duly appreciated the material placed on record before it; thus, the impugned order dated 26.06.2020 passed by the learned revisional court deserves to be quashed and set aside, and the order dated 23.07.2019 passed by the learned trial court deserves to be upheld. 2.8. Learned counsel relied upon the following judgments: (a) Surendra Kumar Bhilawe v. The New India Assurance Company Limited (Civil Appeal No. 2632/2020, decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 18.06.2020; (b) Hosihyar Singh v. Anita, 2016 (2) WLC (Raj.) UC 133; (c) Man Mohan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2007 (2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1492; (d) Smt. Lali Devi & Ors. v. Prabhu Narayan & Ors., 2015 (1) WLC (Raj.) 143 and; (e) Mahendra v. The State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2016 (2) WLC (Raj.) UC 369. 3. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the respondents opposed the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. 3.1. v. Prabhu Narayan & Ors., 2015 (1) WLC (Raj.) 143 and; (e) Mahendra v. The State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2016 (2) WLC (Raj.) UC 369. 3. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the respondents opposed the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. 3.1. Learned counsel submitted that for the purpose of purchasing the vehicle in question, the petitioner took a loan from the respondent-Bank, and despite being agreed to the terms and conditions of such loan being advanced, the petitioner did not make the necessary payment in time. As per learned counsel, on such failure on the part of the petitioner, the respondent-bank sent a notice, through its Advocate, to the petitioner for making the necessary payments, but the payments were not made; whereupon, the authorized official of the respondent-Bank appeared before the learned trial court with the prayer for passing the appropriate orders, but the claim of the respondent-bank was wrongfully not accepted by the learned trial court, while treating the petitioner, as the registered owner of the vehicle in question. 3.2. Learned counsel thus, submitted that the learned trial court fell in error in passing the order dated 23.07.2019, whereby the vehicle in question was ordered to be released on supurdginama in favour of the petitioner, but the said error was rectified and corrected by the learned revisional court, vide the impugned order dated 26.06.2020, and rightly so. 3.3. Learned counsel therefore, submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned revisional court does not suffer from any error-neither in law nor on facts - and thus, the same does not call for any interference by this Court. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that though it was an admitted position before the learned revisional court that the petitioner originally, the petitioner was the registered owner of the vehicle, but it is also apparent on the face of the record that he miserably failed to comply with the condition of the loan advanced to him by the respondent No. 2. 5. 5. The petitioner even failed to pay the first installment of the loan, and consecutively thirty cheques towards such loan were dishonored by the bank; the bank also sent several notices to the petitioner for making the necessary payments, but even then, the petitioner did not make the necessary payment; thus, the respondent-bank had no option but to put the vehicle in question to auction, and it did so, after the order of an Arbitrator regarding taking the custody of the vehicle by the respondent-bank. After the vehicle in question was put to online auction, the same was purchased by Sandeep Desai, whose attorney holder was the respondent No. 2. The vehicle in question, as is clearly apparent on the face of the record, was being purchased by Shri Desai through auction, after completing the due formalities and making all the outstanding due amount towards loan of the vehicle. Thus, the petitioner, in the facts of the present case, cannot be allowed to take the benefit of his own wrong. 6. The judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner do not render any assistance to the case of the present petitioner. 7. In view of the above, this Court does not find any legal infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned revisional court, so as to make any interference therein. 8. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.