Section 457 CrPC mandates an inquiry into ownership for property release when no criminal proceedings are pending.

The applicant, Hasmukhbhai, purchased a Maruti Suzuki Ertiga in 2016 via bank finance

The vehicle was seized by the Dahegam Police under Section 102 of the CrPC after being found in an unattended condition (Station Diary Entry No. 15/19)

Rival claims for the vehicle's release were filed by Hasmukhbhai (claiming ownership via registration) and Hardeepsinh Jadeja (claiming ownership via possession and an Agreement to Sell)

The JMFC, Dahegam, initially released the vehicle to Hasmukhbhai under Section 451 of the CrPC

However, the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar, quashed this order in Revision Application No. 35 of 2020, holding that Section 451 was inapplicable in the absence of a pending proceeding and directed a fresh inquiry under Section 457

Both parties approached the High Court challenging the Revisional Court’s order and the legality of the police seizure

1. Whether the Magistrate could exercise powers under Section 451 of the CrPC for the release of property when no trial or inquiry was pending

2. Whether the seizure of the vehicle under Section 102 of the CrPC was legal given it was found in an unattended condition

3. What is the appropriate procedure for a Magistrate to resolve rival claims of ownership over a vehicle seized by the police but not produced during a trial

The Court applied Section 102 of the CrPC, which empowers police officers to seize "any property" found under circumstances creating suspicion of the commission of an offence

It distinguished between Section 451 of the CrPC (interim custody during a pending trial/inquiry) and Section 457 of the CrPC (procedure by police upon seizure of property when no trial is pending)

The Court also referenced Section 503 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the successor provision to Section 457 CrPC

The High Court observed that Section 451 of the CrPC applies only when property is produced before a Court during an active inquiry or trial

In the present case, as the vehicle was merely seized under Section 102 and no complaint or trial was pending, the JMFC's exercise of power under Section 451 was "improper"

The Court noted that where rival claims exist—one party relying on a Registration Certificate and the other on an Agreement to Sell and finance payments—the Magistrate is duty-bound to conduct a detailed inquiry into the "right to possession" under Section 457

Regarding the legality of the seizure, the Court held that the phrase "any property" in Section 102(1) is broad enough to include unattended vehicles that create suspicion, thus validating the police action

The Court held that Section 457 of the CrPC (now Section 503 BNSS) is the correct provision for adjudicating ownership disputes of seized property when no trial is pending

The JMFC, Dahegam, was directed to conduct an inquiry under Section 457 to decide the issue of ownership/possession on merits, after hearing both parties, within two months