Haseen Ahmed vs State Of Haryana
2024 Latest Caselaw 9796 P&H

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 9796 P&H
Judgement Date : 7 May, 2024

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Haseen Ahmed vs State Of Haryana on 7 May, 2024

                                       Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063573
                                                                                  1




CRM-M
    M No.22136 of 2024


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH

124

                                         CRM-M M No.22136 of 2024
                                         Date of Decision: 07.05.2024

HASEEN AHMED
                                                      ......Petitioner(s)
         Vs
STATE OF HARYANA                                      ....Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ
                                   MANUJA

Present:     Mr. Sarfaraj Anjum Mor, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

                    ****

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral)

[1]. By way of present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., prayer has

been made for setting aside the order dated 21.11.2023 passed by the Addl.

Sessions Judge, Palwal whereby revision petition filed against the order dated

30.05.2023 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palwal stood dismissed

vide which application for release of vehicle on sup superdari was dismissed

[2]. Briefly stating,, the petitioner is the registered owner of the Truck

bearing Registration egistration No.RJ-14-GH-9006, No. , which was impounded by the police in

FIR No.240 dated 22.07.2022, registered under Section 429 IPC, Sections 3, 8,

13(1)(2)(3)(5) & 17 of the Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan

Act, 2015 and Sections 11-59-60 60 of Animal Cruelty Act at P.S. Sadar Palwal, Palwa

Haryana.

[3]. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner moved an application for the release

of the aforesaid vehicle on superdari. The Trial Court vide order dated 30.05.2023

1 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063573

CRM-M

dismissed the application being not maintainable. As against the said order,

petitioner filed revision petition before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge,

Palwal,, which was also dismissed vide order dated 21.11.2023. Hence, the present

petition came to be filed before this Court.

Court

[4]. While impugning the aforesaid orders passed by the Courts below, below

learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court Courts below failed to appreciate

the fact that the vehicle in issue being a commercial vehicle was a source of

income to the petitioner and due to its impounding, the petitio petitioner ner is suffering huge

business as well as financial loss, besides it, the vehicle is becoming junk day day--by-

day.

Learned counsel while relying upon a judgment dated 14.01.2020,

rendered by Co-ordinate Co Bench in CRM-M M No.14463 of 2019, titled "Azhar

Husain Versus Haryana submits that in the similar circumstances, the ersus State of Haryana",

petition was accepted and the vehicle of the owner owner-accused accused was directed to be

released on superdari.

[5].         Notice of motion.


[6].         Upon advance notice, Mr. Gagandeep Singh Chhina, Asstt. A.G.,

Haryana appears on behalf of the respondent/State and vehemently opposes the

prayer made in the petition, however, learned State Counsel has no answer to the

order dated 14.01.2020 passed in Azhar Husain's case (supra).

2 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063573

CRM-M

[7]. I have heard learned lea counsel for the parties and gone through the

paper book.

[8]. In the present case, the seized vehicle is lying in the police station for

the last more than 01 year 09 months,, which may outlive its utility with the

passage of time. No useful purpose is going to be served by keeping the seized

vehicle idle in police station for a long period as the same will become junk. The

offences mentioned in the FIR (supra) are triable by the Magistrate, which may

take long time. It has also been pointed out by le learned arned counsel for the petitioner

that all the accused named in the FIR have been released on bail by the Trial Court

including the alleged driver of the vehicle.

vehicle

[9]. Moreover, the prayer made by the petitioner has been declined in

terms of the provisions provisions laid down under Section 17 of the 2015 Act whereas the

vires thereof were assailed before this Court by way of Civil Writ Petition No.

19153 of 2016, titled "Manipal Versus State of Haryana and others others", ", which was

disposed off vide order dated 30.05.2017 30.05.2017 and the same reads as under:

under:-

" The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to challenge Section 17 of the Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act, 2015 (for short, "the Act") which provides for confiscation of the vehicle used in any offence committed under the Act.

Learned earned counsel for the State submitted that the process for amendment of the Act is in progress and he has instructions from Dr. Rajbir Vats, Gaushala Development Officer, Department of Animal Husbandry & Dairying, Panchkula to state that the vehicle in qu question estion namely, UP-11AT-1273 UP 1273 Ashoka Leyland Pick Up may be released to the petitioner on superdari to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Yamuna Nagar.

3 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063573

CRM-M

In view of the stand taken by learned counsel for the State, learned counsel for the petitioner petitioner submitted that the main writ petition can also be disposed of in case the State is in process of making amendment in the Act vires of which is under challenge.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the present petition is disposed of at this stage as regards vires of Section 17 of the Act is concerned, as amendment thereof is under consideration.

In view of the stand taken with reference to release of vehicle, it is directed that the same shall be released to the petitioner on superdari subject to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Yamuna Nagar."

[10]. As per information provided by the learned State Counsel, no such

exercise of carrying out the amendment of the 2015 Act has been concluded so far

and under similar circumstances, cir Co-ordinate ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated

14.01.2020 in Azhar Husain's case (supra), has already ordered to release the

vehicle allegedly involved under the 2015 Act on superdari. Relevant paras of the

said order dated 14.01.2020 are reproduced hereunder:

hereunder:-

" After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the present petition petitio is allowed in view of the order dated 14.11.2017 passed in CRR CRR-4013-2017

and the impugned orders dated 02.01.2019 and 11.06.2018 are hereby set aside.

The truck in question be released on superdari in favour of the registered owner, on furnishing super superdari dari bond, subject to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/SDJM concerned."

[11]. Thus, in the humble opinion of this Court, upon consideration of the

aforesaid facts, it may be appropriate to order release of seized vehicle on

superdari in favour of its registered owner.

4 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063573

CRM-M

[12]. Resultantly, the petition is allowed and impugned order orders dated

21.11.2023 and 30.05.2023 passed by the Court Courts below are hereby set aside. The

seized vehicle is hereby directed to be released on superdari to its registered

owner-petitioner, petitioner, on furnishing superdari bonds, subject to the satisfaction of the

Trial rial Court / Duty Magistrate / SDJM concerned.



                                               (HARKESH MANUJ
                                                        MANUJA)
May 07, 2024                                       JUDGE
Atik
             Whether speaking/reasoned         Yes/No
             Whether reportable                Yes/No




                                      5 of 5