Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ravinder Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 13 October, 2021
124 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-40542-2021 (O&M)
Date of Decision : October 13, 2021
Ravinder Kumar ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ... ..Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN
Present : Mr. Sanchit Punia, Advocate
for the petitioner..
Mr. Deepak Grewal, DAG, Haryana.
Arvind Singh Sangwan, J.
Prayer in this petition is for quashing/setting aside the order
dated 2.9.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar vide
which the application for releasing the vehicle Tata Ace bearing registration
No.HR-58-A-3490 on Superdari in case FIR No.149 dated 22.5.2021 under
Section 13(1)(2) of the Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan
Act, 2015 (for short 'the Act'), registered at Police Station Partap Nagar,
Distirct Yamuna Nagar has been dismissed.
Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of secret information
that the petitioner is indulged in the transportation of cows and supplying
the same to one Sajid. On the basis of statement of complainant Anand
Sharma, a member of Gau Raksha Dal, the aforesaid FIR has been registered
and the Tata Ace vehicle bearing registration No. HR-58-A-3490, in which
one cow was found, also taken into possession by the police.
1 of 5
CRM-M-40542-2021 (O&M) -2-
The petitioner moved an application before the trial Court for
releasing the aforesaid vehicle on Superdari. The trial Court gave a notice to
the Investigating Officer of the concerned Police Station and in the police
report it was admitted that the vehicle was taken into possession in the
aforesaid FIR but the release of the same on Superdari was objected on the
ground that the confiscation proceedings regarding the vehicle are pending
before the Sub Divisional Magistrate (Civil), Bilaspur as Section 17 of the
Act provides a separate procedure for releasing of the vehicle seized under
the Act.
The trial Court vide impugned order dated 2.9.2021 dismissed
the application mainly on the ground that the separate proceedings under
Section 17 of the Act are pending before the Sub Divisional Magistrate,
Bilaspur and, therefore, the vehicle cannot be released on Superdari.
Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the vehicle
in dispute is the only source of income of the petitioner and the same is lying
unused in the Police Station and with the passage of time, it will outlive its
life and utility. Counsel for the petitioner next argued that the vehicle in
dispute is a commercial vehicle which has been purchased by the petitioner
by raising a loan and the petitioner cannot pay the loan unless he ply the
same for the purpose of earning his livelihood.
Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the order
dated 4.2.2020 passed in CRM-M-12420-2016, wherein the following
observations has been made :-
"Learned counsel has relied upon an order
dated 08.08.2017 passed in CRM-M-28724-2017
2 of 5
CRM-M-40542-2021 (O&M) -3-
(Harpal Singh Vs. State of Haryana), where the
following observations have been made: -
"Learned counsel for the petitioner contends
that Amendment of Haryana Gauvansh
Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act, 2015
(hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), is in
process and in a similar case, a co-ordinate
Bench of this Court by the order dated
16.01.2017 passed in CRM No. M- 37389 of
2016 titled as "Isran v. State of Haryana"
had also directed the release of vehicle of the
petitioner therein subject to the satisfaction
of trial Court.
In support of his submissions, he has
also placed reliance upon the judgment of
Division Bench of this Court in the case of
"Mainpal v. State of Haryana and others"
CWP No.19153 of 2016 decided on
30.05.2017.
Learned State counsel does not
controvert the submissions made by learned
counsel for the petitioner and states that the
amendment of the Act is under process.
Consequently, the petition is allowed
and the impugned orders dated 06.03.2017
(Annexure P-4) and 21.04.2017 (Annexure
P-6) are set-aside. The vehicle i.e truck
bearing registration No. HR99YV(T)1534
shall be released on superdari subject to the
satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate."
3 of 5
Similar orders have been passed in CRM-
M-3881-2017 (Kulwinder Singh Vs. State of
Haryana), in which vide order dated 31.05.2017,
the vehicle was ordered to be released and in
(Isran Vs. State of Haryana) vide order dated
16.01.2016, vehicle had been ordered to be released
on Superdari.
In reply, learned State counsel has
submitted that the revisional Court had passed the
order, considering the fact that the vehicle was not
confiscated under Section 17 of the Haryana
Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act,
2015."
Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that it will be a
matter of trial whether the FIR was registered by an officer not below the
rank of Sub Inspector and the confiscation made by an officer not competent
to do so is maintainable.
Reply by way of affidavit of the Deputy Superintendent of
Police, Bilaspur is on record and the learned State counsel, on the basis of
the same, has submitted that since the vehicle has been seized under the
Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act, 2015, the same
cannot be released as per the Section 17 of the Act. It is also submitted that
as per Section 17 of the Act, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bilaspur is
competent to decide whether the vehicle is to be seized or released and a
request already made by the police, in this regard, is pending.
After hearing counsel for the parties and considering the facts
and circumstances of the case, I find merit in the present petition and
the same is allowed and the impugned order dated 2.9.2021 passed by the
4 of 5
CRM-M-40542-2021 (O&M) -5-
Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar is set aside. The vehicle, in
question, be released on Superdari in favour of the registered owner on
furnishing Superdari bonds, subject to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty
Magistrate/Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, concerned.
The present petition stands disposed of.
( ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN )
October 13, 2021 JUDGE
satish
Whether speaking/reasoned : YES / NO
Whether reportable : YES / NO
5 of 5
