Restored registration does not justify interim custody where possession was voluntary and ownership is disputed.

The petitioner purchased a tractor in May 2020, which was registered in her name.

In January 2021, she rented the vehicle to the respondents for a monthly fee. After the respondents ceased payments in January 2023, the petitioner discovered the tractor had been fraudulently registered in the name of Respondent No. 3 (Roop Singh).

Following an enquiry, the RTO cancelled the illegal transfer and restored registration to the petitioner on April 1, 2024, under Section 55 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

However, physical possession remained with Respondent No. 3.

The petitioner filed a private complaint and subsequently moved two applications before the Trial Court (JMFC) seeking to place the vehicle in the custody of a third party or the police to avoid potential liability for accidents.

The JMFC rejected the applications, and this was affirmed by the X Additional Sessions Judge, Morena, in Criminal Revision No. 38 of 2025. The petitioner challenged these orders before the High Court.

1. Whether the restoration of registration by the RTO in favor of the petitioner necessitates the transfer of physical possession of the vehicle via an interim application during a pending criminal complaint.

2. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS to set aside concurrent findings of the lower courts when the underlying transaction is in dispute.

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which pertains to the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice.

Section 55 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, regarding the cancellation of registration.

The principle that inherent powers should not be exercised to interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts unless there is manifest injustice or perversity, particularly when the dispute is essentially civil in nature.

The Court observed that while the RTO's statutory order restored registration to the petitioner, the physical possession of the tractor was originally transferred to the respondents voluntarily under a rental agreement.

The respondents presented a "plausible defense" asserting that the vehicle was sold to them by the petitioner’s husband and that they had been consistently paying the loan installments.

The Court reasoned that because a private complaint is currently pending, the legality of the possession and the validity of the alleged fraudulent transfer are matters that require a full trial on the merits.

It held that the petitioner’s apprehension regarding accident liability could be mitigated by RTO records but did not provide a sufficient legal basis to displace current possession through an interim application while the nature of the transaction is still being litigated.

Finding no manifest injustice, the Court declined to invoke its inherent powers.

The Court held that the dispute between the parties is civil in nature and ownership must be determined by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.

The petitioner was granted liberty to file a civil suit to ascertain ownership of the vehicle.