Ravindra Singh @ Ravindar Singh, aged about 30 years, son of Adhayan Singh, resident v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.843 of 2022 ------ Ravindra Singh @ Ravindar Singh, aged about 30 years, son of Adhayan Singh, resident of village Jonhi Khanr, P.O. Bhandariya, P.S. Bhandaria, District- Garhwa … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ For the Petitioner For the State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate Mr. P. K. Rahul, Advocate : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P. ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 17.11.2021 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa in connection with Ranka P.S. Case No.73 of 2021 registered under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa rejected the prayer of the petitioner for release of the three-wheeler Auto Rickshaw bearing registration No. JH 03W 7371 and also for quashing and setting aside the order dated 07.01.2022 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Garhwa whereby and where under Criminal Revision No.92 of 2021 preferred under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. against the said order dated 17.11.2021 has been dismissed and the said case is now pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Garhwa. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the said three-wheeler Auto Rickshaw bearing registration No.JH 03W 7371 was seized by the police in connection of 1 Cr. M.P. No.843 of 2022 the said case involving the offences punishable under Section 279, 337, 338 of the Indian Penal Code. The vehicle in question was not having a valid insurance on the date of occurrence i.e. 28.02.2021. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Rule 6 of the Jharkhand Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 2019 do not prohibit the release of the vehicle not insured but it provides that if the owner furnishes sufficient security to the satisfaction of the court to pay compensation, that may be awarded in any claim case arising out of such accidents, such vehicle can be released. It is next submitted that the vehicle in question has been kept under the open sky which is likely to diminish its value with passage of time. It is next submitted that there is no chance of the trial being concluded in near future and the petitioner is suffering irreparable loss because of the seizure of his vehicle and is ready and willing to furnish sufficient security to the satisfaction of the court below. 5. It is next submitted that the learned Sessions Judge, Garhwa in Criminal Revision No.92 of 2021 also failed to appreciate the settled principle of law and in this respect, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Rohit Kumar Singh vs. The State of Jharkhand passed in Cr.M.P. No.4187 of 2023 dated 03rd April, 2024. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed. 6. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and submits that since the vehicle was not insured on the date of accident, hence the learned Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa has rightly rejected the prayer for release of the 2 Cr. M.P. No.843 of 2022 vehicle. Therefore, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2003 SC 638 that it is of no use to keep the seized vehicle at the police station for a long time and it is for the magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking bond and guarantee as well as security for the return of the vehicle, if required, at any point of time that can be ordered to be produced. 8. Now coming to the facts of the case, undisputedly the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and there is no material to suggest that the production of vehicle is required for either the investigation or the trial of the case. It is certainly not desirable that a vehicle seized by the police be kept under open sky when there is no chance of the trial being concluded within any reasonable time. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Jai Prakash vs. National Insurance Company Limited & Others reported in (2010) 2 SCC 607 para-41 of which reads as under:- “41. Where there is no insurance cover for a vehicle, the owner should be directed to offer security or deposit an amount, adequate to satisfy the award that may be ultimately passed, as a condition precedent for release of the seized vehicle involved in the accident. If such security or cash deposit is not made, within a period of three months, appropriate steps may be taken for disposal of the vehicle and hold the sale proceeds in deposit until the claim case is disposed of. The appropriate Governments may consider incorporation of a rule on the lines of Rule 6 of the Delhi Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 2008 in this behalf.” (Emphasis supplied) 3 Cr. M.P. No.843 of 2022 has held that where there is no insurance cover for a vehicle seized by police for being involved in an accident, the owner should be directed to offer security or deposit an amount adequate to satisfy the award that may be ultimately passed, as a condition precedent for release of the seized vehicle involved in the accident. 10. A plain reading of Rule 6 of the Jharkhand Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 2019 which reads as under:- 6. Prohibition against release of motor vehicle involved in accident.- (1) No court shall release a motor vehicle involved in an accident resulting in death or bodily injury or damage to property, when such vehicle is not covered by the policy of insurance against third party risks taken in the name of registered owner or when the registered owner fails to furnish copy of such insurance policy despite demand by investigating police officer, unless and until the registered owner furnishes sufficient security to the satisfaction of the court to pay compensation that may be awarded in a claim case arising out of such accident. (2) Where the motor vehicle is not covered by a policy of insurance against third party risks, or when registered owner of the motor vehicle fails to furnish copy of such policy in circumstance mentioned in sub-rule (1), the motor vehicle shall be sold off in public auction by the magistrate having jurisdiction over the area where accident occurred, on expiry of three months of the vehicle being taken in possession by the investigating police officer, and proceeds thereof shall be deposited with the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in question, within fifteen days for purpose of satisfying the compensation that may have been awarded, or may be awarded in a claim case arising out of such accident. (Emphasis supplied) makes it crystal clear that the said Rule has not put a total ban on release of the vehicle seized by police which has no insurance cover for a third party risk rather it has envisioned that as a condition precedent for release of seized vehicle involved in accident, security or cash deposit is to be made by the owner of the vehicle within a period of three months and if within a period of three months, the owner of the vehicle fails to deposit the security/cash 4 Cr. M.P. No.843 of 2022 amount, appropriate steps may be taken for disposal of the vehicle and the sale
Decision
proceeds be held in deposit until the claim case is disposed of. 11. Now coming to the facts of the case, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the learned Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa has failed to act in accordance with Rule 6 of the Jharkhand Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 2019 and has unnecessarily allowed the vehicle to be kept under open sky and thereby diminishing its value. As already indicated above, Rule 6 of the Jharkhand Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 2019 mandates that if an owner of the vehicle, even if the vehicle is involved in an accident causing death of or bodily injury to any person or injury to any property, has no insurance covering the third-party risks, if otherwise, the petitioner seeking the release of the vehicle is entitled to get custody of the vehicle as per law, the absence of the insurance policy covering the third-party risks will not be an impediment for release of the vehicle but the rider in such a case is that the registered owner must be asked to furnish sufficient security to the satisfaction of the court to pay compensation that may be awarded in any claim case arising out of such accident. But the learned Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa has not given any opportunity to the owner of the vehicle to furnish sufficient security to the satisfaction of the court to pay the compensation amount that may be awarded, in any claim case arising out of the accident. It is crystal clear from the facts of the case that though the seized vehicle allegedly involved in the accident has been seized for a considerable period of time, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa has not taken any steps to ensure compliance of Rule 6 (2) of the Jharkhand Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 2019, which envisages that the motor vehicle, the owner of which fails to furnish the 5 Cr. M.P. No.843 of 2022 insurance policy covering the third-party risks, shall be sold off in public auction by the magistrate having jurisdiction over the area where the accident occurred. 12. Under such circumstances, order dated 17.11.2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa in connection with Ranka P.S. Case No.73 of 2021 as well as the order dated 07.01.2022 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Garhwa whereby and where under Criminal Revision No.92 of 2021 preferred under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. against the said order dated 17.11.2021 has been dismissed; being not sustainable in law is quashed and set aside and the petition of the petitioner for release of the said three-wheeler Auto Rickshaw bearing registration No.JH 03W 7371 is allowed subject to the petitioner furnishing an indemnity bond of Rs.1,25,000/- with two solvent sureties along with undertaking to pay the compensation to be awarded in any motor accident claims case arising out of the said accident. 13. Accordingly, the petitioner who is the registered owner of vehicle sought to be released is directed to furnish the said indemnity bond with two solvent sureties for Rs.1,25,000/- and also undertaking to produce the said three- wheeler Auto Rickshaw bearing registration No.JH 03W 7371 as and when directed by the court; in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa and upon his furnishing such indemnity bond with two solvent sureties, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa is directed to release the said three- wheeler Auto Rickshaw bearing registration No.JH 03W 7371 in favour of the petitioner upon his undertaking to produce the vehicle as and when required by the learned trial court or by the investigating officer of the case and any other condition that may be imposed by the learned trial court and the said 6 Cr. M.P. No.843 of 2022 order dated 07.01.2022 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Garhwa whereby and where under Criminal Revision No.92 of 2021 preferred under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. against the said order dated 17.11.2021 has been dismissed and the said case is now pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Garhwa, is also quashed and set aside. 14. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 24th of June, 2024 AFR/ Animesh 7 Cr. M.P. No.843 of 2022