1 - Ram Avtar Sahu S/o Ashik Ram Sahu Aged About 43 Years R/o v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through -Collector
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:4511 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1050 of 2023 1 - Ram Avtar Sahu S/o Ashik Ram Sahu Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Koylari, Post- Koylari, Tahsil - Sahaspur Lohara, Police Station - Singhanpuri (Jungle), District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through -Collector, (Durg) District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Correct Address As Per Cause Title Of The Case) 2 - Bhagchand Sahu S/o Milapram Sahu Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Khursipar, Police Station Khursipar, Bhilai, District - Durg Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For applicant For Respondent No.1 For Respondent No. 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate Ms. Pushplata Khalkho, P.L. Mr. Udit Khatri on behalf of Aman Pandey, Advs : : : Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Order on Board 24.01.2025 1. The present applicant has filed this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with the following prayer:- “It is therefore most humbly prayed that the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an order to release the truck bearing registration No. CG 08 AA 1706 in Supurdnama to the applicant which has been seized by Police of Police Station Khursipar, District Durg” 2. It is respectfully submitted by the learned counsel for present applicant that earlier a agreement to sale and purchase was executed between the present applicant and the respondent no. 2 but the respondent no. 2 neither paid the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the applicant nor paid the loan 2 amount to Cholamandlam Finance Company till today and thereafter in the month of April, 2022 again executed an agreement and give the possession of the vehicle to the present application, therefore, the applicant has no other option but to cancel the agreement of sale and purchase and therefore sent a legal notice in the moth of May, 2022 to the respondent No. 2. It was also mentioned in the aforesaid legal notice that he has filed an objection for transfer of the name of the vehicle in favour of any other person. 3. It is further respectfully submitted by the present applicant that after getting the aforesaid notice in the month of May-June, 2022 the respondent no. 2 prepared a plan to get the vehicle from the applicant and with the help of Ravi Mandal and 3 other policeman from the District - Durg came to the house of the present applicant on 29.10.2022 and take his vehicle to Durg and threatened him to came to Khursipar on 01.11.2022 for compromise with the respondent no. 2. The applicant filed an application before Superintendent of Police Kawardha, District - Kabirdham (C.G.) on 31.10.2022 against Ravi Mandal, Bhagchand, the non-applicant no. 2 and 3 other persons. He is the only owner of the vehicle as the earlier executed sale agreement has already been cancelled and the truck was looted by the non-applicant no. 2 and the same act was reported by the present applicant before the Superintendent of Police, Kawardha, District Kabirdham though report was not lodged by the police, therefore, the vehicle may kindly be given on Supurdnama to the present applicant by modifying the order dated 06.04.2023 which is not according to law. 3 4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the present applicant is entitled to get his vehicle on Supurdnama (Interim custody), in light of the various judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court particularly in light of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Special Leave Petition (Cri) No. 2745/2002 captioned as Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujrat, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the articles are not kept for a long time in the police station, in any case, for not more than 15 days to 1 month and it is also held that an application under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. should be exercised expeditiously and judicially to serve the purpose that owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation. The order impugned is bad, illegal, arbitrary as the learned revisional court has held that in case of Dashrath Prasad the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held that the interim custody of the vehicle must be given to the actual owner though name was not transferred in document and the entire documents show that the present applicant is sole owner (actual as well as registered) of the vehicle. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant is very much claiming the supurdnama of his vehicle truck on the ground that he is the owner of the aforesaid vehicle truck and the sale agreement has already been cancelled and report was lodged by him before Superintendent of Police regarding loot of the vehicle which is also under enquiry, therefore, the vehicle must be given on Supurdnama to the present applicant and the impugned order dated 06.04.2023 must cancelled/modified. 4 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/s submits that as per FIR a total consideration amount of rupees 8,92,445 (1.5 lakh cash and 7,42,845 transferred online) has already been paid to the applicant however he refused to either return the amount or to oblige the agreement by handing over the possession of the truck to the Respondent. During investigation police has seized said vehicle for which both applicant and the Respondent No. 2 have filed application for release of vehicle on supurdnama under section 457 of Cr.P.C. It is submitted the learned Court below dismissed the application preferred by both parties against which revisions were preferred wherein the impugned order was passed by the Ld Revisional Court. It is pertinent two note here that while allowing the revision the learned Court below has specifically observed that in case of agreement for sale of vehicle where in the consideration has already been paid the purchaseeshall have the right to get vehicle released on supardanama. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that after impugned order was passed and the vehicle release on supurdnama the same was stolen for which an FIR bering no 121/2023 was lodged by respondent No. 2 with P.S. BhilaiBhatti. It is submitted that till date the aforesaid vehicle is not recovered by the police. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records as well as impugned order. 9. On perusal of the records, it transpires the fact that both applicant and the Respondent No. 2 have filed application for release of vehicle on 5 supurdnama under section 457 of Cr.P.C. The learned Trial Court dismissed the application preferred by both parties against which revisions were preferred wherein the impugned order was passed by the Ld Revisional Court has passed the order in favour of the respondent No. 2 and the vehicle was given on Supurdnama to the complainant/respondent No. 2 vide order dated 06.04.2023. Against which the present applicant has preferred present petition. 10. Given the submission made and documents filed by the learned counsel for respondent that after releasing the vehicle on Supurdnama, the same was stolen for which an FIR bearing No. 121/2023 was lodged by the respondent No. 2 at Police Station BhilaiBhatti and till date the aforesaid vehicle is not recovered by the Police and the respondent No. 2 has written letter on 31.10.2022 to the Superintendence of Police Durg for inquiring in this matter, therefore it is crystal clear from the records, that vehicle No. CG-08-AA-1706 is neither in custody/possession of respondent No. 2, nor is custody/possession of police. 11. In view of above, this Court is opinion that as and when the vehicle is seized by the police, the applicant has right to file application for supurdnama. As such, the present Petition has become infructuous. 12. However, the applicant is at liberty to file suitable application before the trial Court, if he so wants. 13. Accordingly, the present CRMP stands dismissed as having infrucutous. Jyoti sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge