Allahabad High Court
Shree Krishan And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 5 August, 2022
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Pachori
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 14
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5621 of 2022
Petitioner :- Shree Krishan And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Satendra Nath Rai
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
Heard Sri Satendra Nath Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Manoj Kumar Sahu, learned A.G.A. and perused the materials on record.
The present writ petition has been filed to set-aside the order dated 25.01.2022 passed by Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri in Criminal Revision No. 09 of 2022 by which the revisional court has affirmed the order dated 06.12.2021 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri on application for release of attached tractor bearing No. U.P. 31B.A.9166, in Case Crime No. 979 of 2021, under Sections 279, 337, 338 of I.P.C. and Section 184 of Motor Vehicles Act, Police Station- Kotwali Sadar, District- Lakhimpur Kheri, by which tractor in question has been released in favour of the petitioner on depositing of Rs. 4 lacs as security.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the first information report dated 28.09.2021 has been lodged against the driver of the tractor bearing No. U.P. 31 BA 5166, under Sections 279, 337, 338 of I.P.C. and Section 184 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is further submitted that Akhilesh Kumar Maurya, who was injured in the accident dated 28.08.2021, suffered head injury and fractured on left hand.
He further submits that the aforesaid conditions, as imposed, for release of the tractor are onerous and arbitrary and not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is next submitted that the lower court below as well as revisional court without considering the sub-rule (3) of Rule 203-B of the U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998, as incorporated vide U.P. Motor Vehicles (Eleventh Amendment) Rules, 2011 or without ascertaining the fact that whether causing death or permanent disablement is caused to the person on account of the accident imposed the aforesaid conditions.
Learned counsel for the applicants fairly admitted that the present vehicle in question, i.e., tractor bearing No. U.P. 31 BA 5166 was not insured at the time of the incident.
It is further submitted that the as per the order of the revisional court, which shows that the aforesaid conditions were imposed by the court below under the provision of Sub- rule (3) of Rule 203-B of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998, as inserted by U.P. Motor Vehicles (Eleventh Amendment) Rules, 2011. It would be useful to reproduce the Rule 203-B, which reads as under:-
"203-B. Prohibition against release of vehicle.-
(1) No vehicle, involved in any accident, shall be released by investigating Police Officer or any Police Officer superior to him unless a release order is passed, by the court having jurisdiction.
(2) No vehicle, involved in any accident shall be released by the Judicial Magistrate, having jurisdiction, unless the compliance of sub-rules (1) to (3) of Rule 203-A is ensured from the investigating Police Officer and duly attested copies of Registration Certificate, Insurance Certificate, Route Permit, Fitness Certificate of vehicle as the case may be and driving license of the driver who was driving at the time of accident, are filed by the applicant.
(3) No court shall release a vehicle involved in accident causing death or permanent disability when such vehicle is not covered by Policy of Insurance against third party risks unless the owner/registered owner of the vehicle furnished sufficient security to the satisfaction of the court to pay compensation that may be awarded in a claim case arising out of such accident.
(4) Where the vehicle is not covered by a policy of insurance against third party risks, or when the owner/registered owner of the vehicle has failed to furnish sufficient security under sub-rule (3), or the policy of insurance produced by owner is found fake/forged, the vehicle shall be sold in public auction by the Judicial Magistrate, having jurisdiction, on expiry of six months of the vehicle being seized by the investigating Police Officer and proceeds thereof, shall be deposited with the Claims Tribunal, having jurisdiction over the area in question, for the purpose of satisfying the compensation to be awarded in claim case."
In this regard learned counsel for the applicant has also relied upon the judgment of this court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 13470 of 2012, (Mairaj Ahmad Khan Vs. State of U.P. and another) decided on 05.10.2012 and Application U/S 482 No. 2252 of 2022 (Ram Saran Vs. State of U.P. Through Principal Secretary Home and another) decided on 12.05.2022.
In view of the facts and circumstances of case, the order dated 06.12.2021 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri which was affirmed by the revisional court vide order dated 25.01.2022 has been passed without considering or ascertaining the fact as to whether in the accident in which the present vehicle is involved causing death or permanent disablement or not to the injured in the accident, imposed the aforesaid condition.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, the order dated 25.01.2022 passed by Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri and order dated 06.12.2021 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri are set-aside and the matter is remitted back to the concerned Magistrate to decide the release application of the applicant afresh in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing, preferably, within a period of 15 days after production of certified copy of this order.
With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 5.8.2022
Ishan
