Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 50 (UTT)

Charan Singh Chauhan v. Sessions Judge

2002-05-14

IRSHAD HUSSAIN

body2002
ORDER Irshad Hussain, J. 1. Applicant preferred a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Code) for quashing the order dated 6-7-2001 passed by C.J.M., Pauri Garhwal and also the judgment and order dated 24-1-2002 passed by Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal, whereby the earlier mentioned order of the C.J.M. was set aside. 2. Heard Smt. Pushpa Joshi, learned applicant's counsel and Sri U.P.S. Negi, Miss. Vijai Laxmi Fartiyal, learned counsel for the opposite parties. 3. At the out-set it need to be pointed out that order dated 6-7-2001 passed by C.J.M., Pauri Garhwal is in favour of the applicant and it appears that due to some confusion quashing of this order has been sought by the applicant. In view of it, the propriety and legality of the other judgment and order dated 24-1-2002 of the Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal remain to be considered for the purpose of the relief claimed through the present application. 4. Applicant had filed a written complaint case No. 1305 of 2001, against respondent No. 2 Laxman Singh Rawat before C.J.M., Pauri Garhwal and this written complaint, before summoning order under Section 204 of the Code, and order dated 6-7-2001 was passed by the C.J.M. directing seizure of truck No. U.P. 08-4535. Aggrieved by this order, respondent No. 2 who was arraigned as an accused, as said above, preferred revision before the Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal, who was of the view that the order impugned was illegal and improper having been passed without any summoning order of the accused and went on to set aside the same by judgment and order dated 24-1-2002, which as mentioned earlier, has been challenged by the present application. In pursuance of the impugned judgment and order dated 24-1-2002, the seized truck was returned to respondent No. 2 from whom the same was seized by the police. However, in the present application an interim order dated 30-1-2002 was passed on the application of the applicant, whereby the operation of the impugned order dated 24-1-2002 was stayed. Pursuant to this, truck in question was again seized and the same is lying at the police station in the custody of the Police, P. S. Srinagar since 8-2-2002. 5. However, in the present application an interim order dated 30-1-2002 was passed on the application of the applicant, whereby the operation of the impugned order dated 24-1-2002 was stayed. Pursuant to this, truck in question was again seized and the same is lying at the police station in the custody of the Police, P. S. Srinagar since 8-2-2002. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the impugned judgment and order dated 24-1-2002 is improper and illegal because the learned Sessions Judge could not have legally interfered with the order of seizure of truck passed by the C.J.M. on 6-7-2001 as the order was purely interlocutory as contemplated under the provision of Sub-section (2) of Section 397 of the Code. In support of the argument, reliance has been placed on a decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the matter of Murlidhar v. State of U.P., 1992 Cri LJ 2032. Having gone through the reported decision and also the legal aspect of the matter, I see no force in the submission of the learned counsel, because the order passed by the learned C.J.M. on 6-7-2001 was not an order as contemplated under Section 451 of the Code. The reason being that the property or the vehicle in question was neither physically nor symbolically produced during the enquiry before the C.J.M, Pauri Garhwal when the order dated 6-7-2001 was passed. In the absence of the production of the vehicle in question before the C.J.M., Pauri Garhwal, order for seizure could not have legally been passed and this being the situation the order amounted to mere abuse of the process of the Court and cognizance of which fact had rightly been taken by the learned Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal, who had no alternative but to set aside the said order dated 6-7-2001. In the case of the peculiar circumstances and the facts of the case it cannot be accepted that the order passed by the learned C.J.M. oh 6-7-2001 could not have been made the subject-matter of revision before the Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal. The learned Sessions Judge had jurisdiction to interfere with the order tantamounted to the abuse of the 'process of the Court and, therefore, it cannot be accepted that it was the case of interference in an interlocutory order, as contemplated under Sub-section (2) of Section 397 of the Code. 6. The learned Sessions Judge had jurisdiction to interfere with the order tantamounted to the abuse of the 'process of the Court and, therefore, it cannot be accepted that it was the case of interference in an interlocutory order, as contemplated under Sub-section (2) of Section 397 of the Code. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has in the circumstances rightly made the submission that the judgment and order impugned passed by the learned Sessions Judge being just and proper has to be maintained and the wrong done to respondent No. 2 need to be set right. The truck No. U.P. 08-4535 as is the admitted case, is registered in the name of respondent No. 2, who has also filed the original registration certificate with his affidavit dated 8-5-2002. The truck cannot be permitted to remain idle and it need to be returned to respondent No. 2. 7. Application under Section 482 of the Code is hereby dismissed. It is further ordered that truck No. U.P. 08-4535 is to be given custody of registered owner, the respondent No. 2. Original registration certificate be returned to respondent No. 2, who shall after taking custody of the truck, deposit the due registration fee, if any, and shall have the registration renewed from the competent registering authority.