(Prayer: Criminal Revision is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to set-aside the order passed by the learned XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015 in Crl.M.P.No.4703 of 2004 in E.F.I.R.No.324 of 2004, dated 16.12.2004.)

1. The first respondent herein / Inspector of Police, who is attached to the K.K.Nagar Police Station has registered a criminal case in Crime No.783 of 2002, against the accused for an offence under Section 379 IPC. At this stage, the defacto complainant, viz., M/s.Sundaram Finance Limited has filed Crl.M.P.No.4703 of 2004, to permit the petitioner-company to sell the vehicle bearing registration TN-09-U-7202 and permit them to deposit the sale proceeds before the trial Court. The learned XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai observing that a similar petition filed by the petitioner, had been dismissed by the Court on 16.03.2004 and on observing that a similar petition for the same relief cannot be presented before the Court as it has no power to review its own order, dismissed the petition.

2. Against the said dismissal order, the above revision has been filed by the defacto complainant.

3. The highly competent counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the learned Magistrate failed to consider that the revision petitioner was the owner of the vehicle and as such, he is entitled to receive the vehicle. The petitioner Company is a Public Limited Company and doing hire-purchase of automobiles and machineries and leasing of equipments. The said company had purchased the said car from M/s.D.S.E. Motors (P) Ltd., Annasalai under invoice dated 13.07.2001 and the vehicle stands in the name of the petitioner company. The R.C.book and permit and other tax receipts and insurance particulars are in the name of the petitioner Company. The said vehicle was entrusted to the second respondent herein on the basis of hire purchase agreement, which was repayable in 48 monthly installments, commencing from 13.07.2001. Therefore, the relationship between the defacto complainant and the accused are as owner and hirer and as such, the revision petitioner herein is entitled to get back his vehicle bearing registration No.TN-09-U-7202. The highly competent counsel further contended that one Kirubakaran levelled a complaint before the Inspector of Police stating that the said vehicle had been stolen from his premises. On the strength of the said complaint, F.I.R. had been registered and the vehicle was seized. Prior to the seizing of the vehicle, the said vehicle met with an accident and the vehicle was left there itself. Further, the petitioner was given interim custody of the vehicle, as per the order passed by the learned Magistrate in Crl.M.P.No.1017 of 2003, after imposing of some conditions. As such, the vehicle had been handed over to the revision petitioner herein. Now, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has stated that the petitioner has sought permission from the learned Magistrate to sell the said car and deposit the amount before the learned Magistrate since the said vehicle is deteriorating day by day. If the vehicle is sold in the public auction and the sale amount is deposited in Court, no one would be prejudiced and the character of the prosecution case will not be changed. Hence, the very competent counsel entreats the Court to permit the petitioner to sell the said car.

4. The highly competent counsel for the State vehemently argued that the case has been registered under Section 379 of IPC, on the strength of written complaint lodged by one Kirubakaran, stating that his car has been stolen from his premises. As such, the ownership is now under dispute. It is an admitted fact that the vehicle has been given to the revision petitioner herein as interim custody, after imposing stringent conditions. As such, the vehicle is still under the custody of the trial Court and therefore, the revision petitioner has no locus-standi to sell the vehicle before determining the veracity of the claim regarding ownership. Further, one Kirubakaran lodged a complaint and he is also a necessary party in the said proceedings and without adding him as necessary party, the revision is not maintainable. The very competent counsel further contended that the revision petitioner may be possessing documents in their name relating to the vehicle, but the physical possession of the car is vested with one Kirubakaran and a theft case has been registered against the second respondent herein, on the basis of Kirubakarans complaint. Therefore, there is no clarity regarding ownership and possession of vehicle.

5. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned order of the learned Magistrate, this Court does not find any shortcomings in the said order. This Court is of the further view that the complaint had been lodged by one Kirubakaran, stating that the car bearing registration No.TN-09-U-7202, had been stolen from his premises at door No.145, Paraneshwar Vihar, Vadapalani, Chennai-26, on 05.04.2002. No particulars have been produced by the said Kirubakaran, regarding his complaint about the ownership of the car. Under the circumstances, this Court is unable to pass favourable orders to the revision petitioner herein. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the above revision.

6. In the result, the above revision is dismissed. Consequently, the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.4703 of 2004 in E.F.I.R.No.324 of 2004,on the file of XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, dated 16.12.2004 is confirmed. Accordingly ordered.