Rajasthan High Court
Neetu Bargoti W/O Shri Vikas Bargoti vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:7731) on 12 February, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Upman
Bench: Anil Kumar Upman
[2024:RJ-JP:7731]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7853/2023
Neetu Bargoti W/o Shri Vikas Bargoti, Aged About 40 Years, R/o
B-55, Tulsi Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Police Station , Vidhyadhar
Nagar, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through P.P
2. Shree Ram Sopra S/o Radha Kishan, R/o 461, Ekta Block,
Mahaveer Nagar, Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur City (East),
Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Pathak
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahendra Meena, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Judgment / Order
12/02/2024
By way of this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the
petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.08.2023 passed by
learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.1, Jaipur Metro-I (hereinafter
referred to as 'the learned Revisional Court' for brevity) in Cr.
Revision No.54/2023 whereby the learned revisional court
dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioner and affirmed the
order dated 26.05.2023 passed by the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate No.8 in Cr. Case No.30/2022 dismissing the application
filed on behalf of the petitioner for handing over the custody of the
Shop Nos.F-44 and F-45, Alankar Tower, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur
on supurdagi.
[2024:RJ-JP:7731] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-7853/2023]
Learned counsel for the accused petitioner submits that the
respondent No.2/complainant lodged an FIR No.252/2021 at Police
Station Shipra Path, Jaipur City (South), levelling false and
frivolous allegations. Apprehending her arrest, the petitioner also
filed an application for anticipatory bail before the learned
Sessions Court, Jaipur Metro, which was accepted by the said
court vide order dated 15.06.2022. Learned counsel submits that
the petitioner owns two shops No.F-44 and F-45, situated at first
floor, Alankar Plaza, Plot No.A-10, Central Spine, Vidhyadhar
Nagar, Jaipur which she has purchased through registered sale
deed by her self earned income. The petitioner is running her
business in both the shops. However, both these shops including
the goods/articles lying therein, have been seized by the petitioner
in the name of investigation of the aforesaid FIR. The petitioner
moved an application before the court of learned Metropolitan
Magistrate No.9, Court for releasing of the shops as well as the
goods/articles lying therein, on supurdagi. Vide order dated
26.05.2023, learned Magistrate Court dismissed the said
application. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision before the
learned revisional court. However, the learned revisional court vide
order dated 25.08.2023, dismissed the revision and affirmed the
order dated 26.05.2023.
Learned counsel submits that on 12.01.2024, he has already
made a submission before the court that the petitioner confined
his prayer to the delivery of the articles lying in the shops in
question and in this petition, he does not claim supurdagi of the
shops in question. Learned counsel submits that the articles lying
in the shops would become junk and soon would be of no use. He
[2024:RJ-JP:7731] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-7853/2023]
places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat,
reported in AIR 2003 SC 638.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the criminal
miscellaneous petition.
I have heard and considered the submissions advanced at
bar and have gone through the material available on record.
On 12.01.2024, learned counsel for the petitioner made a
submission before the Court that he confined his prayer to the
delivery of articles lying in the shops in question and notices were
also issued to the respondents on the said date. Notices have
been served upon the respondent No.2. However, despite service,
no one has appeared on his behalf to oppose this misc. petition.
The petitioner has confined his prayer for release of the
goods/articles lying in the shops in question. The FIR in
connection whereof, the shops were seized was filed on
25.03.2021 and after a lapse of more than three years,
investigation has been kept pending against the petitioner under
Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. Further, the ownership of the goods/articles
are not in dispute and they are being deteriorated day by day.
The purport of the case law cited by learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the power under Section 451 Cr.P.C. should be
exercised expeditiously. The reason being that owner of the article
should not suffer because of it remaining unused and the police
should not be required to keep the article in safe custody. It has
been further laid down in the aforecited case law that while giving
custody of the article, the article should be released on proper
security.
[2024:RJ-JP:7731] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-7853/2023]
Furthermore, in the aforecited precedent law, the Hon'ble
Apex Court has held that the court should pass appropriate orders
immediately and the articles should not be kept for a long time
unused. The procedure for disposal of the seized valuable articles,
currency notes, vehicles, seized liquor and narcotic drugs has also
been laid down therein.
Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for
the parties and in view of the ratio laid down in the case of
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, reported in
AIR 2003 SC 638. the present misc. petition is allowed. The
impugned orders dated 25.08.2023 and 26.05.2023 passed by
courts below are quashed and set aside and the learned trial court
is directed to release the goods/articles lying in the aforesaid two
shops to the petitioner provided she furnishes a Supurdaginama of
Rs. 50,000/- and surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the
trial court. Before releasing the goods/articles to the petitioner,
the trial court shall direct the IO concerned to prepare the
inventory of the articles and shall take the same on record.
(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J
Sudhir Asopa/16
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
