Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Surjeet Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:22043) on 7 May, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:22043]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3662/2025
Surjeet Kumar S/o Bhadar Ram, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Ward
No 5 Vpo 31 Tatasar Sriganganagar Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
2. Iffco tokio general insruance company ltd, 3rd floor a-13
and 37 Hanuman Nagar Jaipur Rajasthan
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Navneet Singh Birkh.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sriram Choudhary, PP.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
07/05/2025
The instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner
against the order dated 02.01.2025 passed by learned Additional
Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh whereby the application to hand
over final custody of the vehicle No.RJ-13-TA-2351, filed by the
petitioner has been allowed with a condition that the petitioner
shall not dispose of the vehicle or hand it over to the Insurance
Company or any other person.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the
vehicle has been ordered to be handed over to the petitioner on
Supardaginama but it is of no use as the same is non-usable and
in a very bad condition. Learned counsel submitted that if the
vehicle is not disposed of then it will unnecessarily be a junk lying
in his premises. He further submits that the police authorities
have already filed the charge sheet and the investigation report in
respect of the said vehicle has already been submitted in the
competent criminal court and therefore, the order dated
[2025:RJ-JD:22043] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-3662/2025]
02.01.2025 passed by the learned court below may be modified
and the petitioner may be permitted to dispose of/ hand over the
custody of the vehicle in question to the Insurance Company on
being taken over by him on Supardaginama.
In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied upon the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of General
Insurance Council & Ors. vs. State of Andhra Pradash &
Ors., decided on 19th April, 2010 wherein, the Hon'ble Court held
as under:-
14. In our considered opinion, the aforesaid
information is required to be utilised and followed
scrupulously and has to be given positively as and
when asked for by the Insurer. We also feel, it is
necessary that in addition to the directions issued by
this Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra)
considering the mandate of Section 451 read
with Section 457 of the Code, the following further
directions with regard to seized vehicles are required
to be given.
"(A) Insurer may be permitted to move a separate
application for release of the recovered vehicle as
soon as it is informed of such recovery before the
Jurisdictional Court. Ordinarily, release shall be made
within a period of 30 days from the date of the
application. The necessary photographs may be taken
duly authenticated and certified, and a detailed
panchnama may be prepared before such release.
(B) The photographs so taken may be used as
secondary evidence during trial. Hence, physical
production of the vehicle may be dispensed with.
(C) Insurer would submit an undertaking
/guarantee to remit the proceeds from the
sale/auction of the vehicle conducted by the
Insurance Company in the event that the Magistrate
finally adjudicates that the rightful ownership of the
vehicle does not vest with the insurer. The
undertaking/guarantee would be furnished at the time
of release of the vehicle, pursuant to the applcation
for release of the recovered vehicle. Insistence on
personal bonds may be dispensed with looking to the
corporate structure of the insurer."
[2025:RJ-JD:22043] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-3662/2025]
Learned public prosecutor has opposed the petition.
However, he was not in a position to refute the fact that
investigation in respect of the vehicle in question has already been
completed and the Investigating Agency does not require the
vehicle in question.
This court has considered the submissions made at Bar and
is of the view that since all the formalities with respect to taking of
the photographs etc. viz-a-viz the investigation of the vehicle has
been completed and the investigation agency does not further
require the physical possession of the vehicle or the Insurance
Company has no objection/hindrance, no purpose would be
served, if the vehicle is kept lying in the non-usable condition in
the premises of the petitioner after it being handed over to him on
Supardaginama.
In view of the above, the misc. petition is allowed. The
impugned order dated 02.01.2025 passed by learned Additional
Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh is modified and it is ordered that upon
the vehicle in question is handed over to the petitioner on
Supardaginama, if he complies with the condition Nos. (A), (B) and (C)
as enumerated in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
General Insurance Council & Ors. vs. State of Andhra Pradash &
Ors (supra), he shall be permitted to dispose of/hand over the custody
of the vehicle to the Insurance Company or dispose it of, as per law.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
68-Tikam/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
