Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 944 (ORI)

Rukmini Prava Mohanty v. State of Orissa

2009-12-10

I.MAHANTY

body2009
ORDER 10.12.2009 Heard Mr. B. P. Mohanty, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner & Learned Counsel for the State. It appears that an application u/s 457, Cr.P.C. was filed by the Petitioner & the same was registered as Misc.Case No.12 of 2009 in G.R. Case No.2763 of 2007 by the Learned SDJM, Bhubaneswar. By Order Dated 12.01.2009 direction was issued to the I.I.C., Saheed Nagar P.S. to release the vehicle in favour of the Petitioner. Since the police did not release the vehicle in the absence of the documents of Registration, the Petitioner filed CMC No.24 of 2009 before the SDJM praying for direction to release the seized R.C. Book of the vehicle in question in favour of the Petitioner. This petition is taken up on 17.01.2009 & the Learned SDJM while taking note of the earlier direction passed by him in Misc. Case No.12 of 2009 for release of the vehicle, found that the R.C. Book of the vehicle stood in the name of Narendra Ch. Nayak & accordingly directed issue of notice to the registered owner & a further direction was issued to the I.I.C., Saheed Nagar P.S. not to release the vehicle in favour of the Petitioner. This latter part of the Order Dated 17.01.2009 is the subject matter of challenge. Learned Counsel further submits that the SDJM once having directed release of vehicle in favour of the Petitioner vide its Order Dated 12.01.2009 arising out of G.R. Case No.2673 of 2007 did not have the jurisdiction to once again direct the I.I.C., Saheed Nagar P.S. not to release the vehicle vide the impugned Order Dated 17.01.2009. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner as¬serts that the order of the Learned SDJM directing the police not to release the vehicle to the Petitioner, amount to review of his earlier Order Dated 12.01.2009 & such power of review is not vested in the Learned SDJM. Therefore this part of the impugned Order Dated 17.01.2009 amounts to an abuse of process of the Court. Therefore this part of the impugned Order Dated 17.01.2009 amounts to an abuse of process of the Court. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on a Judgment of this Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Jena v. The State of Orissa & Anr., reported in (1992) 5 OCR 402, wherein this Court came to hold that an order passed u/s 457, Cr.P.C. is not an interim order but a final order & if any person was ag¬grieved by the same he/she had a right to challenge the same before any higher forum or he may approach the Civil Court for redressal of his grievance, but once an order u/s 457 of the Code is passed, rightly or wrongly, the same is final, so far as, the return of the seized property under the code is concerned & the Magistrate becomes functus officio. Therefore in view of the Judgment referred herein above it is clear that Learned SDJM misdirected himself in directing the I.I.C. of Saheed Nagar P.S. not to release the vehicle since the release had been directed by him by his earlier Order Dated 17.01.2009 in Misc. Case No.12 of 2009. Therefore, the impugned direction contained in the Order Dated 17.01.2009 in CMC No.24 of 2009 directing the I.I.C. of Saheed Nagar P.S. not to release vehicle in favour of the Petitioner, is held to amount to a revision of the earlier Order Dated 17.01.2009 passed in M.C. No.12 of 2009 & therefore amounts to an abuse of profess of the Court. Accordingly, CRLMC is allowed to the extent indicated above. It is clarified here that this order shall not in any manner prejudice the Petitioner’s application Crl. Misc. Case No.24 of 2009, pending before the SDJM, who shall do well to take up the matter expeditiously & dispose of the same expeditiously, in accordance with law. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. CRLMC allowed.