Cholamandalam Investment And ... vs State Of Gujarat
2023 Latest Caselaw 7204 Guj

                                                                               NEUTRAL CITATION




     R/SCR.A/10645/2023                          ORDER DATED: 03/10/2023

                                                                               undefined




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

 R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (POSSESSION OF MUDDAMAL)
                      NO. 10645 of 2023

==========================================================
 CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMPANY LTD THRO
            ILYASBHAI BHIKKABHAI KUSHKIWALA
                          Versus
                   STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. DHRUVIN U MEHTA(9993) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR BV PANDYA APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMIR J. DAVE

                          Date : 03/10/2023

                            ORAL ORDER

1. Though served, none appears on behalf of respondent No.2.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to direct the respondent authority to release the muddamal vehicle, i.e. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. - Bolero PIK-UP bearing Registration No.GJ-27-TT-8406, which came to be seized by the police authority in connection with the complaint being FIR No.11191024221102 registered with Ramol Police Station, in favour of the petitioner, on suitable terms and conditions.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/10645/2023 ORDER DATED: 03/10/2023

undefined

3. It is submitted that respondent No.2 had purchased the vehicle in question by availing finance from the petitioner- Company. After seizure of the vehicle in connection with the impugned FIR, the respondent No.2 stopped making payment of the installments. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present petition for release of the vehicle in its favour.

4. In support of his arguments, learned advocate for the petitioner relied upon orders passed by the Coordinate Benches of this Court in Special Criminal Application Nos. 2538 of 2014; 2283 of 2016 and 2300 of 2016.

5. Heard learned advocates for the parties.

6. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Special Criminal Application No. 2538 2014 dated 26.03.2015 made the following observations in paragraphs - 16 & 17, which reads thus;

"16. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the vehicle should be handed over to the finance company and the company should be permitted to sell the vehicle subject to certain terms and conditions. In this context may quote with profit a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of General Assurance Counsel and others v. State of A.P. And others, 2010 AIR SCW 2967. The Supreme Court has made the following observations in paragraph Nos. 14 and 15 which reads as under:-

"14. In our considered opinion, the aforesaid information is

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/10645/2023 ORDER DATED: 03/10/2023

undefined

required to be utilised and followed scrupulously and has to be given positively as and when asked for by the Insurer. We also feel, it is necessary that in addition to the directions issued by this Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (Supra) considering the mandate of Section 451 read with Section 457 of the Code, the following further directions with regard to seized vehicles are required to be given with Section 457 of the Code, the following further directions with regard to seized vehicles are required to be given.

"(A) Insurer may be permitted to move a separate application for release of the recovered vehicle as soon as it is informed of such recovery before the Jurisdicitonal Court. Ordinarily, release shall be made within a period of 30 days from the date of the application. The necessary photographs may be taken duly authenticated and certified, and a detailed panchamama may be prepared before such release.

(B) The photographs so taken may be used as secondary evidence during trial. Hence, physical production of the vehicle may be dispensed with.

(C) Insurer would submit an undertaking/guarantee to remit the proceeds from the sale/auction of the vehicle conducted by the Insurance Company in the event that the Magistrate finally adjudicates that the rightful ownership of the vehicle, pursuant to the application for release of the recovered vehicle. Insistence on personal bonds may be dispensed with looking to the corporate structure of the insurer."

15. It is a matter of common knowledge that as and when vehicles are seized and kept in various police stations, not only they occupy substantial space of the police stations but upon being kept in open, are also prone to fast natural decay on account of weather conditions. Even a good maintained vehicle loses its road worthiness if it is kept stationary in the police station for more than fifteen days. Apart from the above, it is also a matter of common knowledge that several valuable and costly parts of the said

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/10645/2023 ORDER DATED: 03/10/2023

undefined

vehicles are either stolen or are cannibalised so that the vehicles become unworthy of being driven on road. To avoid all this, apart from the aforesaid directions issued hereinabove, we direct that all the State Governments/Union Territories/Director Generals of Police shall ensure macro implementation of the statutory provisions and further direct that the activities of each and every police stations especially with regard to disposal of the seized vehicles be taken care of by the Inspector General of Police of the concerned Division/Commissioner of Police of the concerned cities/Superintendent of Police of the concerned district."

17. The respondent No.2 has not yet become the absolute owner of the property as he is obliged to pay the loan amount. Even as per the RTO records, the ostensible ownership is with the applicant company."

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court and since the petitioner-Company has financed the vehicle in question and respondent No.2 has not bothered to repay the amount of installments, in the interest of justice, it would be just and appropriate to release the vehicle in question in favour of the petitioner.

8. In the result, the petition is allowed. The concerned Police Station is directed to handover possession of the muddamal vehicle being Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. - Bolero PIK-UP bearing Registration No.GJ-27-TT-8406 to the petitioner at the earliest. It shall be open for the petitioner-company to sell the muddamal vehicle after executing a Bond before the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/10645/2023 ORDER DATED: 03/10/2023

undefined

trial Court concerned equivalent to the amount of sale consideration and after following due procedure prescribed under the law for the transfer of vehicles, i.e. after drawing panchnama and taking photographs of the vehicle. The petitioner shall intimate the trial Court concerned about the sale consideration received by it. The petitioner shall also file an Undertaking before the trial Court concerned that the petitioner shall deposit the entire sale proceeds in the Court, if ordered by the Court at the end of trial.

9. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service is permitted.

(SAMIR J. DAVE,J)

PRAVIN KARUNAN