Madhya Pradesh High Court

Anantrao vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 March, 2025

Author: Maninder S. Bhatti

Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti

         NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:14155




                                                               1                             MCRC-4176-2021
                              IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT JABALPUR
                                                        BEFORE
                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
                                                   ON THE 21st OF MARCH, 2025
                                            MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 4176 of 2021
                                                     ANANTRAO
                                                       Versus
                                      THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
                           Appearance:
                              Shri Ashok Lalwani - Senior Advocate with Shri Abhishek Singh - Advocate for
                           the applicant.
                              Shri Pramod Kumar Pandey - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.

                              None for the respondent No.2.

                                                                   ORDER

This is an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C seeking quashment of the order dated 05.12.2020 passed by II Additinal Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur District Narsinghpur in Cr.R.No.41/2020 by which, the application moved by the present applicant under Section 451/457 of Cr.P.C. for releasing the house hold articles and vehicles etc. mentioned in the said application which was seized by the Police Station Stationganj vide Crime

No.385/2019 on supurdginama was rejected by the JMFC, Narsingpur vide order dated 06.10.2020.

2. It is contended by the senior counsel that one Mukesh Vishwakarma who is private respondent herein had filed a case against the present applicant under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, alleging inter alia that a sum of Rs.8,50,000/- was taken by the present applicant in order to

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:14155

2 MCRC-4176-2021 secure employment to the complainant therein and when the employment was not provided, the said amount was sought to be refunded to the complainant by way of cheque and the cheque upon its submission was dishonored on account of insufficiency of funds which gave birth to a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. Though, the applicant herein was convicted but later on, an appeal was filed by the applicant and at the appellate stage, compromised arrived at between the present applicant and original complainant Mukesh Vishwakarma which has been brought on record along with I.A. No. 6488/2025 (Annexure A/14) and in terms of the said compromise, the present applicant was acquitted vide order dated 09.12.2023 passed in Case No.134/2023.

3. It is further contended by the senior counsel that the original

complainant Mukesh Vishwakarma simultaneously lodged the First Information Report as well vide FIR No.385/2019 with Police Station Stationganj Kareli, District Narsinghpur and in the said FIR, the allegations were levelled that the aforesaid amount was taken by the present applicant while assuring that the employment would be provided to the complainant but neither the employment was provided nor the amount was refunded and when the complainant demanded the said amount, he was abused as well as threatened by the present applicant. As a result of the said complaint, a First Information Report under Sections 294, 506 and 507 of IPC was registered against the present applicant. Pursuant to the registration of the said offence, various house hold articles, vehicles etc. which are contained at page No.11 to I.A.No.6488/2025 were seized by the prosecution. The present applicant

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:14155

3 MCRC-4176-2021 filed an application seeking releasing of the aforesaid articles on Supurdginama. The said application was turned down and later on, the applicant preferred a revision as well, but the Revisional Court declined to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court regarding refusal to accept the application for release of Supurdginama. Thus, challenging the order passed by the Revisional Court, this petition is filed.

4. It is contended by the senior counsel that it is a case where the applicant has been victimized unnecessarily. On the FIR so lodged by the original complainant Mukesh Vishwakarma under Sections 294, 506 and 507 of IPC, the prosecution ventured upon to record statement of few witnesses and the said witnesses asserted in their statements that they were also cheated at the behest of the present applicant in same manner and the identical allegations were levelled by them in the statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. However, none of those witnesses even made any complaint to any of the authority nor they lodged any FIR against the present applicant. During pendency of the proceedings before the trial Court, an application was also filed by the prosecution under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. and it was prayed that while carrying out the seizure, a firearm was also seized, therefore, the offence under Section 25/27 of Arms Act was also required to be registered and accordingly, the charges were required to be framed under the aforesaid sections. The said application was taken note of by the trial Court and the trial Court then pass an order by altering the charge not only under Section 25/27 of Arms Act but also under Section 420 of IPC in view

of the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. as the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:14155

4 MCRC-4176-2021 trial Court was of the opinion that apart from the original complainant, other persons were also cheated by the present applicant.

5. It is further contended by the senior counsel that so far as other witnesses are concerned, whose grievances have been taken note of by the trial Court, they have no nexus with the aforesaid house hold articles, vehicles etc. which have been seized from the premises of the present applicant. The original complainant has already entered into compromise and he is not willing to pursue any matter against the present applicant, therefore, the seized articles including two four wheeler, TV, AC and etc. ought to have been released in favour of the present applicant. It is also contended by the senior counsel that in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujrat reported in AIR 2003 SC 638 the aforesaid house hold articles are required to be released to the applicant as the same are being deteriorated day by day in custody of the Police. Accordingly counsel submits that the order impugned be set aside and the aforesaid house hold articles be released in favour of the present applicant.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the said prayer and submitted that the application for supurdginama has been rightly turned down as the applicant was guilty of deceiving many persons who were arrayed as witnesses in the complaint moved by complainant Mukesh Vishwakarma and therefore, unless the trial is taken to its logical end, the applicant cannot claim the aforesaid articles on supurdginama. It is contended by the counsel that the Revisional Court has rightly passed the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:14155

5 MCRC-4176-2021 order while rejecting the revision of the applicant. Thus, the Courts below having considered the aforesaid, has not committed any error while declining the request of the present applicant. Hence, submits that the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

7. None for the respondent No.2 and on the last date also i.e. 19.03.2025 there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent No.2 and specific direction was made by this Court on the last date that the matter would be heard on the next date even in absence of respondent No.2.

8. No other point is pressed or argued by both the parties.

9. Heard the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties.

10. A perusal of the records reflect that so far as the original complainant Mukesh Viswhakarma is concerned, he has already entered into compromise with the present applicant. The factum of compromise is not being disputed by anyone and in view of the compromise only, the present applicant was acquitted so far as the complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act was concerned. It is further evident that none of the witnesses whose statements were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. in respect of the FIR which was lodged by original complainant Mukesh Vishwakarma, had ever lodged any complaint against the present applicant. There is no complaint on the record.

11. It is further important to take note that none of the person ever claimed the custody of the aforesaid house hold articles, vehicles etc. on supurdginama. In absence of any other claimant, as the seizures were made from the possession of the present applicant, in the considered view of this

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:14155

6 MCRC-4176-2021 Court it would have been conducive as well as expedient in the interest of justice to release the aforesaid seized articles in favour of the present applicant.

12. The Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujrat reported in AIR 2003 SC 638 dealt with the provisions of Section 451 of Cr.P.C. as regards disposal of the properties pending trail. The Apex Court held that the powers under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. should be exercised expeditiously and also judicially. The Apex Court also deals with the eventuality of seizure of various items like vehicle, jewellery, currency notes etc. The Apex Court in paragraphs 17, 18 and 21 in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (Supra) has as under:

"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 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 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 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.

* * *

21. However these powers are to be exercised by the concerned Magistrate. We hope and trust that the concerned Magistrate would take immediate action for seeing that powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. are properly and promptly exercised and articles are not kept for a long time at the police station, in any case, for not more than fifteen days to one month. This object can also be achieved if there is proper supervision by the Registry of the concerned High Court in seeing that the rules framed by the High Court with regard to such articles are implemented properly."

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:14155

7 MCRC-4176-2021

13. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court reflects that no fruitful purpose is going to be served in keeping the aforesaid seized articles in custody as likelihood of deterioration of aforesaid articles cannot be ruled out.

14. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (Supra), it is evident that there is all likelihood of deterioration of the entire seized articles including vehicles, TV, AC etc. and also apart from the applicant undisputedly no one has claimed custody of the vehicles as well as other articles as mentioned in the application, therefore, the claim of the present applicant for interim custody ought to have been entertained by the Courts below. The Courts below ought to have exercised the powers under Section 451/457 of Cr.P.C. in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (Supra), while granting custody of the vehicles as well as house hold articles to the applicant therein who claimed owner-ship.

15. Accordingly, the order impugned orders dated 05.12.2020 and 06.10.2020 are set aside and the petition filed by applicant is allowed. The trial Court is directed to release the vehicles as well as other house hold articles which were seized from the possession of the present applicant as per inventory contained in Annexure A/9 to I.A. No.6488/2025 on Supurdginama to him during trial subject to following conditions:-

1. The applicant shall furnish Supurdginama to the sum of

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:14155

8 MCRC-4176-2021 Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thiry Lac Only) and a surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for releasing the vehicles as well as other house hold articles in question.

2. The applicant shall also furnish an undertaking that he shall produce the vehicles and other house hold articles as and when required during the trial.

3. The applicant shall not alienate the same or make use of such vehicles for any unlawful purpose during pendency of the case.

4. An undertaking shall also be given by the applicant that the nature of the vehicles and other house hold articles in question shall not be changed without prior permission of this Court.

5.Apart from the above, it is further directed that before releasing the vehicles and other house hold articles in interim custody of the applicant, the S.H.O. of concerning police station shall get photographs sized 18 x 12 inches of the concerned vehicles as well as other house hold articles taken from all sides and also the photographs showing engine number and chassis number of the vehicle. Such photographs shall be filed in the trial Court to be kept along with the record.