Alkesh vs State Of Haryana And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 1327 P&H

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                       AT CHANDIGARH

                                               CRM-M-9903-2022
                                               Date of Decision:-08.03.2022


ALKESH
                                                               ... Petitioner
                                   Versus


STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
                                                               ... Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH


Present:-     Mr. Navneet Singh, Advocate
              for the petitioner.

                           *****

KARAMJIT SINGH, J. (Oral)

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for quashing the impugned order dated

15.9.2021 (Annexure P-4) passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,

Kurukshetra, which was affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge,

Kurukshetra vide its order dated 14.2.2022 (Annexure P-6) whereby the

application moved by the petitioner for release of his vehicle bearing

No.HR-56-B-7218 on Superdari was declined.

Notice of motion.

On the asking of the Court, Ms. Harpreet Kaur, AAG, accepts

notice on behalf of State of Haryana.

                                     1 of 4

                                 (2)                           CRM-M-9903-2022

The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that aforesaid

vehicle of petitioner was illegally seized by Mining Department and he

approached the Illaqa Magistrate for its release on Superdari but his request

was declined by the said Court vide order dated 15.9.2021. That the

petitioner filed revision petition but remained unsuccessful as the same was

dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra vide order

dated 14.2.2022. The counsel for the petitioner further submitted that FIR

has already been registered against the petitioner for indulging in illegal

mining which resulted into seizure of the aforesaid vehicle. The counsel for

the petitioner further submitted that as the petitioner is facing criminal

charges, the provisions of Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. are applicable in the

present case and in this situation the Courts below should have released the

vehicle on Superdari in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in

Sunderbhai Ambala Desai vs. State of Gujarat, 2002(10) SCC 283. The

counsel for the petitioner also referred to order dated 15.10.2020 passed in

CRM-M-19322-2020 Irfan vs. State of Haryana and another, whereby

this Court directed that the vehicle stated to be involved in illegal mining,

shall be released on Superdari as ordered by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class

and the order of confiscation dated 21.8.2020 was also quashed in the

interest of justice having been imposed without any jurisdiction by the

Mining Officer during the pendency of the proceedings. The counsel for the

petitioner also placed reliance on M/s K.C. Stone Crushing Company and

Another vs. State of Haryana and Others, 2021(2) RCR (Criminal) 469.

The State counsel while opposing the present petition

contended that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders.

                                   2 of 4

                                  (3)                           CRM-M-9903-2022

However, the fact regarding registration of FIR has been admitted by the

State counsel. It is further contended that the Mining Department has

already directed the petitioner to deposit the compensation amount through

seizure order and till the deposit of the same, no ground is made to release

the vehicle on Superdari.

I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the

parties.

The vehicle in question was seized by the Mining Department

as it was stated to be involved in illegal mining. Admittedly FIR No.363

dated 30.8.2021 under Section 379 IPC and Section 21(4) of the Mining Act

was later on registered with regard to aforesaid allegations of illegal mining.

So provisions of Sections 451/457 Cr.P.C. are applicable in the present case

and the Magistrate has got power to release the vehicle in question on

Superdari to its registered owner in the light of the law laid down in

Sunderbhai Ambala Desai's case (supra).

During arguments, both the counsel made prayer that let the

present petition be disposed of in terms of CRM-M-54622-2021 titled as

Ankit vs. State of Haryana decided by this Court on 14.02.2022.

In the light of the above, the present petition is allowed and the

impugned orders dated 15.9.2021 (Annexure P-4) and dated 14.2.2022

(Annexure P-6) are hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the

Court of concerned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kurukshetra to decide the

matter afresh in accordance with law within a period of 'one month' from

the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is further made clear that no order

3 of 4

(4) CRM-M-9903-2022

regarding confiscation of vehicle in question be passed till the disposal of

Superdari application of the petitioner regarding release of vehicle in

question.

                                        ( KARAMJIT SINGH)
08.03.2022                                   JUDGE
Gaurav Sorot


                  Whether reasoned / speaking?      Yes / No

                  Whether reportable?               Yes / No




                                  4 of 4