ORDER : 1. The petitioner - Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Bengaluru, has filed these petitions seeking to declare that respondent Nos.1 to 4 have no right to entertain any criminal complaint against the petitioner or any other railway official in the matters relating to disposal of unclaimed/unremoved goods from railway stations and to quash the registration of criminal case in Crime Nos.103 of 2015 and 213 of 2014 of respondent No.4 for the offences punishable under Sections 411 and 420 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC'). 2. Heard Sri Abhinay Y T, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt Sowmya R, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 to 4. Perused the materials on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prayer for declaration as sought may be considered in any other appropriate petition and that he will be satisfied, if the other prayer for quashing of criminal proceedings is considered in this petition. 4. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: "Whether the petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petitions and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him?" My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for the following: REASONS 5. The petitioner is the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager of South Western Railways. It is contended that several two wheelers were booked for transportation with railways and the same were delivered either at Bengaluru City Railway Station or Yeshwantpur Railway Station. Both are notified Railway Stations. The two wheelers were not claimed by the consignees inspite of notice. The Railway Department made all efforts to find out the owners and made an enquiry with RTOs. It has uploaded the details of two wheelers in the website notifying the general public. Inspite of such efforts, the whereabouts of the owner could not be find out. At last, the paper publication in three local newspapers were published giving details of the two wheelers, which were parked in the Railway Stations, without claiming the same. Inspite of that, nobody came forward to collect the two wheelers and therefore, the public auction was held following the procedure as contemplated under Section 90 of the Railway Act. 6. It is contended that the motor cycles are not essential commodities. Inspite of that, nobody came forward to collect the two wheelers and therefore, the public auction was held following the procedure as contemplated under Section 90 of the Railway Act. 6. It is contended that the motor cycles are not essential commodities. They were lying in the notified Railway Stations. Nobody claimed the same within the reasonable time. Under such circumstances, by following the procedure, the public auction was held and sold few of the motor cycles. 7. It is noticed that the respondent police issued notice as per Annexure-F based on the newspaper report said to have been published in the Indian Express daily newspaper and called upon the petitioner to explain under what provision of law, the public auction was held. The petitioner issued the reply as per Annexure-G stating that as per Section 90 of the Railway Act, the auction was held. 8. The petitioner contends that the respondent police instigated respondent No.5 to file the complaint against the petitioner and other railway officials relating to disposal of the unclaimed/unremoved goods from the Railway Station, even though they had no authority under law. These are the two criminal cases which came to be registered one after the other. Even respondent No.5 in these cases are not interested in prosecuting the criminal case. 9. Section 90 of the Railway Act deals with disposal of unremoved goods at notified stations. It is not in dispute that the City Railway Station and Yeshwantpur Railway Station at Bengaluru are notified Railway Stations. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that two wheelers which were sold in the public auction were entrusted to railways for carriage and even after reasonable time, there was nobody to claim the same at the notified stations. Under such circumstances, Section 90 of the Railway Act gives authority to hold public auction by following the procedures as contemplated under law. It is not the contention of the respondent that the petitioner had not followed the procedure as contemplated under law. 10. When Section 90 of the Railway Act authorizes the petitioner to sell the unclaimed/unremoved goods from the notified Railway Stations, I do not find any justification for the respondent police to register the criminal case. If respondent No.5 in both the cases are having any grievance, they can register the case claiming their missing or stolen motor cycle in accordance with law. If respondent No.5 in both the cases are having any grievance, they can register the case claiming their missing or stolen motor cycle in accordance with law. But definitely that will not amount to the offences punishable under Sections 411 and 420 of IPC as registered by respondent police against the petitioner. The respondent police is not justified in registering the crime against the petitioner or other such employees of Indian Railways. 11. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the criminal case as referred to in these petitions are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER : (i) The Writ Petitions are allowed in part. (ii) The criminal proceedings initiated in Crime Nos.103 of 2015 and 213 of 2014 of respondent No.4 Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 411 and 420 of Indian Penal Code, are hereby quashed. In view of the disposal of main petition, IA.1 of 2023 filed for vacating interim order dated 30.03.2015 in Writ Petition No.12294 of 2015 stand disposed off.