Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 2081 (PNJ)

Surender Singh v. State of Haryana

2023-07-06

ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL

body2023
Judgment Mr. Anupinder Singh Grewal, J. This order of mine shall dispose of three afore-noted petitions as these involve common questions of law and facts. 2. The petitioners are seeking quashing of orders dated 15.10.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari, in case FIR No.14 dated 21.01.2021, under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Sections 7, 8, 9 & 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered at Police Station Sector 17, RUDA, Jagadhari, whereby applications of the petitioner(s) for releasing their vehicles on ‘supardari’ have been dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the vehicles owned by the petitioners had been confiscated by the investigating agency on the registration of the FIR as the Registration Certificates were tampered inasmuch as a ‘Star(*) and dash(-)’ were added to the Chassis number. The vehicles were earlier sold by the dealers and loan had been advanced since the instalments were not paid regularly, the recovery agents had taken possession of the vehicles. They had made the afore-noted alterations to circumvent the established procedure for transfer of vehicles including obtaining of ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the Registering Authority. The petitioners are the bona fide purchasers of the vehicles. The vehicles are Mahindra Scorpio EX BSIV 2015, bearing registration No.HR-02AR-6333, Force Cruiser BSIV, bearing registration No.HR-02AS-9216 and Force Cruiser, bearing registration No.HR-02AT-9480. The petitioners have not been arraigned as accused and, therefore, the vehicles should be released to them on ‘superdari’ and the vehicles shall not be sold and they would be produced before the Court as and when called upon to do so. 4. Learned State counsel, while referring to the reply, submits that the vehicles are case property and would be required at the time of the trial. He, however, is not in a position to controvert the submission of the counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have not been arraigned as an accused in the case although challan has been filed and charges have been framed. 5. Heard. The petitioners are claiming to be owner of the vehicles and have not been arraigned as accused although charges have been framed against the other accused. The vehicles, which are stated to be hypothecated, are in custody of the police since January 2022. 5. Heard. The petitioners are claiming to be owner of the vehicles and have not been arraigned as accused although charges have been framed against the other accused. The vehicles, which are stated to be hypothecated, are in custody of the police since January 2022. The condition of the vehicles is likely to deteriorate for want of due care and after some time they shall be reduced to a piece of junk. There is no order with regard to confiscation of the vehicles. It would, thus, be in the interest of justice if the vehicles are ordered to be released on ‘superdari’ to the owners. 6. Consequently, the petitions are allowed and the impugned orders dated 15.10.2022 in the afore-noted writ petitions are set aside. The vehicles are ordered to be released on ‘superdari’ to the petitioners on their satisfying the concerned Court about their ownership of the vehicles. The concerned Court shall also impose other conditions as it may deem necessary.