Rahul Chaturvedi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 4876 MP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 4876 MP
Judgement Date : 1 September, 2021

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Rahul Chaturvedi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 September, 2021

Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

   1     THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
               Criminal Revision No.245/2021
              Rahul Chaturvedi Vs. State of M.P.

Gwalior, Dated:01/09/2021

       Shri Rahul Bansal, Advocate for applicant.

       Shri Ajay Raghuvanshi, Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.

This Criminal Revision under Section 397, 401 of Cr.P.C. has

been filed against the order dated 1/12/2020 passed by Special Judge,

(MPDVPK, Act) in MJCR No.102/2020, by which the application

filed by the applicant under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. for release of

vehicle has been rejected.

It is contended by the counsel for the applicant that on

12/9/2020 the police received an information that 5-6 persons are

standing in suspicious circumstances and they are also having one

four wheeler vehicle. When the police party went to the spot, they

noticed that the accused persons were making preparations for

committing dacoity in Indian Oil Petrol Pump. The accused persons

were arrested on the spot and a vehicle was also seized from the spot.

It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that he is the

registered owner of car No.UP-14-CE-0440 and has it is lying in an

abandoned condition in the Police Station, therefore, irreparable

damage would be caused to the vehicle.

Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the

counsel for the State.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Revision No.245/2021 Rahul Chaturvedi Vs. State of M.P.

The applicant in his cause-title has given his address as

"resident of Umari, Police Station Rampura, Tehsil, Madhogarh,

District Jalon (UP)". Similar address was given before the Court

below. Even in the Adhar card the address of the applicant has been

mentioned as "243, Tiwariyan Tola, Umari Jagir, Umari Jalon, UP".

However, from the certificate of registration of the car in question, it

is clear that the permanent and temporary address of the applicant is

"25, Sector-29, Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad, UP, 201001". Thus, the

residential address of the applicant is seriously in dispute. However,

it is equally clear that the allegations against the accused persons are

that they were making preparation for committing dacoity in a petrol

pump. The applicant has not clarified as to under what condition his

car was found on the spot. Be that as it may.

The Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalala

Desai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283 has held

as under :

"15. Learned Senior Counsel Mr Dholakia, appearing for the State of Gujarat further submitted that at present in the police station premises, a number of vehicles are kept unattended and vehicles become junk day by day. It is his contention that appropriate directions should be given to the Magistrates who are dealing with such questions to hand over such vehicles to their owners or to the person from whom the said vehicles are seized by taking appropriate bond and guarantee for the return of the said vehicles if required by the court at any point of time.

3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Revision No.245/2021 Rahul Chaturvedi Vs. State of M.P.

16. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that this question of handing over the vehicle to the person from whom it is seized or to its true owner is always a matter of litigation and a lot of arguments are advanced by the persons concerned.

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."

If the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case are

considered, then it is clear that there is a serious doubt with regard to

the residential address of the applicant. There is also a serious doubt

as to whether the applicant would produce the car as and when

directed by the Court below or not. However, in the light of the

judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai

Ambalala Desai (supra), this Criminal Revision is allowed on the 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Revision No.245/2021 Rahul Chaturvedi Vs. State of M.P.

following conditions:-

1. The applicant shall produce the self attested

photographs of the car bearing registration No.UP-14-

CE-0440 before the Trial Court with an undertaking that

he shall not dispute involvement of the car in the said

offence.

2. The applicant shall also give an undertaking that he

would neither alienate the car nor would make any

change in the car till conclusion of the trial or appeal, as

the case may be.

3. The applicant shall also submit an undertaking that he

would produce the car before the Trial Court as and

when directed in this regard.

4. As the residential address of the applicant is in serious

doubt, therefore, it is directed that the applicant shall

furnish bank guarantee to the tune of original on road

price of the car. The applicant shall also deposit the

original invoice of the car as well as the self attested

photocopy of the RC book and his driving licence. The

bank guarantee shall be encasheable in case if the

applicant fails to produce the car before the Trial Court.

5. The Trial Court may also impose any other condition 5 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Revision No.245/2021 Rahul Chaturvedi Vs. State of M.P.