RAMESH K KARANGIAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                                                     16-APL-897-2025.DOC




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
               CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.897 OF 2025


Ramesh K. Karangia                                    …Applicant
      Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.                       …Respondents


Mr. V. R. Tiwari a/w. Mr. A. K. Mishra and Mr. Arif Shaikh, for the
Applicant.
Mr. S. V. Walve, APP, for Respondent No.1-State.
Ms. Kajal Pansare, PSI (Pairavi) attached to Azad Maidan Police
Station, Mumbai, present.


                        CORAM:      MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
                        DATED :     1st SEPTEMBER 2026
PC:-


1.       Heard Mr. Tiwari, learned Counsel appearing for the

Applicant and Mr. Walve, learned APP appearing for Respondent

No.1-State.



2.       Despite service of notice, none appears for Respondent No.2.



3.       Mr. Walve, learned APP states that in fact, yesterday also the

Respondent No.2 was informed about this matter by the

Investigating Officer, however, none appears for the Respondent

No.2.



                                  Page 1
Sonali
                                                   16-APL-897-2025.DOC




4.       By this Criminal Application filed under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the challenge is to the legality

and validity of the common order dated 3 rd January 2024 passed

by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 64 th Court, Esplanade,

Mumbai, below Applications of Return of Property in C.C.

No.1392/Misc/2022 and C.C. No.1198/Misc/2022 of Azad Maidan

Police Station, Mumbai. By the impugned order dated 3 rd January

2024, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate rejected both the

Applications filed by the Applicant and Respondent No.2

respectively for return of the property i.e. the white coloured

Range Rover Car bearing Registration No.MH05-CK-0020, Chassis

No.SALVA2AD7FL920319, Engine No.D2784209878224DT. At this

stage only it is relevant to note that although the learned

Metropolitan Magistrate rejected the Application filed by the

Respondent No.2 for return of the property, however, Respondent

No.2 has not challenged the said order and accepted the said order.

As far as the present Applicant is concerned, the Applicant has

challenged the said order dated 3rd January 2024 by filing Criminal

Revision Application No.222 of 2024 in the Sessions Court.

However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 87 th Court at




                                 Page 2
Sonali
                                                    16-APL-897-2025.DOC




Mazgaon, Mumbai dismissed the said Revision Application on the

ground that the same is not maintainable.



5.       It is the submission of Mr. Tiwari, learned Counsel appearing

for the Applicant that the First Informant i.e. Respondent No.2

filed C.R. No.18 of 2022 on 24 th February 2022 with the Azad

Maidan Police Station, Mumbai under Sections 406, 420, 464, 467,

468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on behalf of her

brother and thereafter, the chargesheet has been filed against the

accused-Arjun Raj and Scuderia Private Limited Company. It is

submitted that the brother of the Respondent No.2 wanted to

purchase Mercedes-Maybach Car and the accused assured that

although the market price of the said Mercedes-Maybach Car is

Rs.2,10,00,000/-, the same would be made available to the brother

of the Respondent No.2 at the rate of Rs.1,65,00,000/-. The

brother of the Respondent No.2 accordingly, transacted with the

accused and handed over to the accused his BMW 7 Series car and

Range Rover Car i.e. the subject car/property. The accused

informed the brother of the Respondent No.2 that both these cars

are sold for an aggregate amount of Rs.51,50,000/-. In addition to

the said purchase amount the brother of the Respondent No.2 paid




                                 Page 3
Sonali
                                                 16-APL-897-2025.DOC




Rs.13,50,000/- by RTGS to the Accussed and balance payment was

to be paid by availing bank loan. However, inspite of number of

reminders, the accused-Arjun Raj gave evasive replies and

therefore, information was sought from the main dealer at Delhi

and it was found that Tax Invoice and other documents which were

provided by the accused-Arjun Raj with respect to said Mercedes-

Maybach Car are forged documents.



6.       However,   Mr. Tiwari, learned Counsel appearing for the

Applicant submitted that as far as the Applicant is concerned, the

Applicant has purchased the subject car from Agent of accused

Arjun Raj and valuable consideration of Rs.28,60,000/- was paid.

He submitted that in fact, for that purpose, loan was availed from

the ICICI Bank and Rs.15,00,000/- were paid. He relied on a

photocopy of the Registration Certificate (“RC”) Book, which is at

page 217 of the Writ Petition, wherein the name of the Applicant is

mentioned as registered owner of the car. He has also pointed out

the papers which are annexed to the Petition from pages 181 to

221 showing the papers concerning the loan taken from the ICICI

Bank, papers showing the repayment of the said loan and papers

showing the transfer in the Applicant’s name. He therefore,




                               Page 4
Sonali
                                                     16-APL-897-2025.DOC




submitted that the impugned order is required to be quashed and

set aside. He has also pointed out the No Objection given by the

police for the return of the property to the Applicant (Page 215 to

216).



7.       Mr. Walve, learned APP submitted that the order in

accordance with law be passed.



8.       Perusal of the record shows that it is true that accused-Arjun

Raj has assured the brother of the Respondent No.2 at whose

instance, the FIR has been lodged that Mercedes-Maybach Car

which was available in the market for Rs.2,10,00,000/- would be

made available to the Respondent No.2’s brother only at the rate of

Rs.1,65,00,000/-      and   for   making   the   said   payment,    the

Respondent No.2’s brother has sold his two cars through said Arjun

Raj. One of the said two cars, i.e. the subject car has been

purchased by the Applicant for valuable consideration by availing

loan from the ICICI Bank. In fact, the Applicant is a registered

owner as per RC Book.




                                  Page 5
Sonali
                                                  16-APL-897-2025.DOC




9.       It is required to be noted that the learned Metropolitan

Magistrate has rejected the Application of the Applicant as also the

Applicantion of the Respondent No.2 (First Informant) by

observing that there is a dispute regarding ownership. However, as

per the prosecution case as reflected in the FIR and the

chargesheet admittedly, the brother of the Respondent No.2 has

handed over two cars including the subject car to accused -Arjun

Raj for selling the same to the propspective purchasers and

accordingly, the subject car has been purchased by the Applicant.

The said accused -Arjun Raj has cheated the brother of the

Respondent No.2 is another aspect of the matter. However, it is

clear that the Applicatnt has purchased the said car. It is an

admitted position that the said car has been handed over to the

investigating machinery by the Applicant on 20 th April 2023. Thus,

as a result of the impugned order, the car is standing in the Police

Station for last three years. The Supreme Court in the case of

Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat 1 has observed as

under:




1        (2002) 10 SCC 283




                               Page 6
Sonali
                                                   16-APL-897-2025.DOC




         “15. Learned Senior Counsel Mr Dholakia,
         appearing for the State of Gujarat further
         submitted that at present in the police station
         premises, a number of vehicles are kept
         unattended and vehicles become junk day by day.
         It is his contention that appropriate directions
         should be given to the Magistrates who are
         dealing with such questions to hand over such
         vehicles to their owners or to the person from
         whom the said vehicles are seized by taking
         appropriate bond and guarantee for the return of
         the said vehicles if required by the court at any
         point of time.



         16. However, the learned counsel appearing for
         the petitioners submitted that this question of
         handing over the vehicle to the person from
         whom it is seized or to its true owner is always a
         matter of litigation and a lot of arguments are
         advanced by the persons concerned.

         17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of
         no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police
         stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate
         to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking
         appropriate bond and guarantee as well as
         security for return of the said vehicles, if required
         at any point of time. This can be done pending
         hearing of applications for return of such
         vehicles.

         18. In case where the vehicle is not claimed by
         the accused, owner, or the insurance company or
         by a third person, then such vehicle may be
         ordered to be auctioned by the court. If the said
         vehicle is insured with the insurance company
         then the insurance company be informed by the
         court to take possession of the vehicle which is




                               Page 7
Sonali
                                                      16-APL-897-2025.DOC




               not claimed by the owner or a third person. If the
               insurance company fails to take possession, the
               vehicles may be sold as per the direction of the
               court. The court would pass such order within a
               period of six months from the date of production
               of the said vehicle before the court. In any case,
               before handing over possession of such vehicles,
               appropriate photographs of the said vehicle
               should be taken and detailed panchnama should
               be prepared.”

                                              (Emphasis added)


10.      As noted hereinabove, as a result of the impugned order, the

subject car is in Police Station for last about 3 years. Accordingly,

by imposing conditions, there is no impediment in returning the

property to the Applicant.



11.      The Criminal Application is disposed of by passing the

following order:



                                  ORDER



         (a)     The common order dated 3rd January 2024 passed by

                 the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 64th Court,

                 Esplanade, Mumbai, passed below Applications for

                 Return of Property in C.C. No.1392/Misc/2022 and




                                    Page 8
Sonali
                                                     16-APL-897-2025.DOC




               C.C. No.1198/Misc/2022 of Azad Maidan Police

               Station, Mumbai, is quashed and set aside.



         (b)   The said Range Rover Car, bearing Registration

               No.MH05-CK-0020, Chassis No.SALVA2AD7FL920319

               and Engine No.D2784209878224DT be returned to

               the Applicant on the following terms and conditions:-



               (i)      The Applicant shall not create any third-

                        party interest with respect to the subject car

                        till disposal of the said criminal cases.



               (ii)     The Applicant shall make the said car

                        available   for   further    investigation,   if

                        required by the Police and also as and when

                        directed by the Court.



               (iii)    The Applicant shall file undertaking to the

                        above effect within 15 days in this court and

                        before the learned trial court also bond and

                        security be given in terms of the law laid

                        down by the supreme court in the case of



                                 Page 9
Sonali
                                                               16-APL-897-2025.DOC




                                   Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) to the

                                   satisfaction of the learned Trial Court and

                                   thereafter the said vehicle be returned to the

                                   Applicant.



           12.      The Criminal Application is disposed of in above terms with

           no order as to costs.




                                                      [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]


       Digitally
       signed by
       SONALI
SONALI MILIND
MILIND PATIL
PATIL Date:
       2026.09.02
       15:08:24
       +0530




                                           Page 10
           Sonali