ORDER
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.
1. The revision filed against the order of the 5th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in Crl.Misc. No. 31 of 2001. The petitioner and the first respondent made rival claims before the Trial Court for delivery of possession of the Maruthi Van bearing Registration No. KA-05-A-8788 by way of interim custody which was seized by J.P. Nagar Police in connection with C.Misc. No. 1117 of 2001. The petitioner contends that he has purchased the vehicle from the first respondent by a written agreement of sale by paying a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- and balance of the loan amount due to the Corporation Bank is being repaid by the petitioner in installments. In support of his argument, the copy of the agreement and the copy of the Bank statement is filed. It is submitted that there is no allegation of commission of any cognizable offence. Therefore, the seizure of vehicle by the J.P. Nagar Police is without jurisdiction and consequent proceedings of reporting seizure to Criminal Court is untenable.
2. The first respondent also made a claim contending that he is a R.C. holder. The Trial Court found that first respondent being the R.C. holder is a rightful person, accordingly allowed his claim and rejected the prayer of the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the present petition is filed.
3. After going through the records, it is surprising to note that no crime is registered in respect of the vehicle in question. The Police have simply seized the vehicle by invoking provisions of Sections 41 and 102 of the Cr. P.C. The said provisions does define any substantive offence and are not penal in nature. They only deal with the procedure of the seizure of the properties in the course of investigation. Any properties suspected to be a subject-matter of offence can be seized and later on investigation could be conducted to link the property with the crime. In the instant case the report submitted by first respondent to the Police does not contain any allegation of commission of crime in respect of the vehicle in question nor the vehicle appears to be an offence property. The proceedings in C.Misc. No. 1117 of 2001 is registered. A seizure panchanama is prepared, the vehicle is subjected to P.F. The Police reported the seizure to Court.
4. The State Public Prosecutor also concedes to the fact that no case is registered in respect of any offence and only civil miscellaneous is registered.
5. The jurisdiction of the Police to seize the vehicle in the course of investigation pre-supposes a commission of a cognizable offence preceded by registration of crime without which the police do not get any jurisdiction to seize the vehicle. In the instant case registration of C.Misc. No. 1117 of 2001 does not amount to registration of any crime nor disclose commission of any cognizable offence. In that view the seizure is illegal and without jurisdiction. Consequently, the Criminal
Court also does not get any jurisdiction under Section 451 or 457 of the Cr. P.C. to pass any order.
6. On merits, I find the petitioner has placed substantial material to show that he is in lawful possession of the vehicle and has been paying installments to the Corporation Bank. Merely because the first respondent is R.C. holder is not a decisive fact in his favour to entitle custody from the Court.” However, I find the very seizure of the vehicle is illegal in the absence of a registration of a case for commission of a cognizable offence. The Court had no jurisdiction to have passed any interim orders. The Trial Court has overlooked this vital aspect of jurisdiction to entertain the claim. Therefore, the order of the Trial Court is set aside. The vehicle is directed to be handed over to the custody of the petitioner forthwith without any condition.