Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 258 (JHR)

Pradeep Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2022-03-07

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2022
JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Spl.P.P. for the State and Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the accused-O.P. No. 2. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 18.08.2020, passed in Cr. Revision No. 85 of 2019 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Hazaribag, whereby the revision has been dismissed and the order dated 30.09.2019, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribag, in Barhi P.S. Case No. 191 of 2019 has been affirmed, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribag. 3. The informant has filed the complaint petition before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribag against two accused persons namely Mukesh Kumar Mehta and Razi Ahmad, alleging therein that the informant is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. JH-02-AJ-7420. He is engaged in transport business and use to ply his aforesaid vehicle for hire himself. It is further alleged that accused persons demanded Rs. 2 lac as extortion money and threatened of dire consequences if demand is not fulfilled and this demand was being done since year 2016. It is further alleged that on 15.05.2019 at about 2.00 to 3.00 PM when the informant along with his brother and wife going in the aforesaid vehicle then accused persons riding on the motorcycle stopped the vehicle after overtaking and accused Mukesh Kr. Mehta put the revolver upon informant and demanded extortion money and took two cheques Rs.5,000/- cash from the pocket of the informant. Accused Razi Ahmad took away the vehicle. Informant reported the matter to the respectable persons of the village for settlement but accused persons did not agree for the same unless their demand for extortion is fulfilled. Belatedly the matter was reported to the police station where the informant was suggested to go to the Court for filing complaint. Therefore, the complainant filed complaint case no. 1064/2019. The said complaint petition was sent to Barhi P.S. for institution of the FIR and accordingly Barhi P.S. case No. 191 of 2019 was registered against the accused persons. 4. Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle in question and final form has been submitted in the matter, wherein the accused persons have not been sent up for trial. 4. Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle in question and final form has been submitted in the matter, wherein the accused persons have not been sent up for trial. He further submits that thereafter, protest petition has been filed before the concerned Court, which is still pending. He further submits that on the basis of the report along with the agreement, which is contained in Annexure-2 to the petition, the vehicle has not been released in favour of the petitioner, which has also been affirmed by the revisional Court. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the accused-O.P. No. 2 submits that the vehicle in question has been transferred by way of the said agreement. 6. There is no dispute that petitioner has lodged the complaint, which has been sent under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the police and thereafter the vehicle was recovered from the possession of the accused persons. Final form has been submitted, whereby, the accused persons have not been sent up for trial. Accused persons have appeared suo motu in this case by way of filing vakalatnama and the protest petition, filed by the petitioner is still pending before the concerned Court. So far as the signature on the agreement is concerned, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has disputed the same. 7. It is an admitted fact that the ownership of the vehicle in question has not been transferred by the office of the District Transport Officer to the O.P. No. 2. Thus, prima facie, it appears that the ownership of the vehicle in question is with the petitioner. It is also an admitted fact that the EMI is due against the petitioner. 8. In the light of these facts, the vehicle in question is commercial one and lying in the open field at the police station and the vehicle is deteriorating day by day. Reference may be made to the case of “Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat” reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283 wherein paras-17 and 18, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “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. Reference may be made to the case of “Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat” reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283 wherein paras-17 and 18, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “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 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.” 9. In view of the aforesaid facts, the impugned order dated 18.08.2020 passed in Cr. Revision No. 85 of 2019 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Hazaribag, whereby the revision has been dismissed and the order dated 30.09.2019, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribag in Barhi P.S. Case No. 191 of 2019 has been affirmed, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribag, are hereby, quashed and set aside. The vehicle, in question shall be released in favour of the petitioner on his undertaking on the following terms and conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall produce the original registration certificate (as issued by the Transport Office). If it is a duplicate, he must obtain a certificate from RTO that duplicated was issued from the office. The vehicle, in question shall be released in favour of the petitioner on his undertaking on the following terms and conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall produce the original registration certificate (as issued by the Transport Office). If it is a duplicate, he must obtain a certificate from RTO that duplicated was issued from the office. (ii) The petitioner shall also execute a bond in a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- with two solvent sureties that he will produce the vehicle back in court whenever required by the Court. 10. The Trial Court is at liberty to impose any other terms and conditions, which the trial court deems fit and proper. 11. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition stands allowed and disposed of.