Senha, P.S. Senha, District Lohardaga v. The State of Jharkhand Party
Case Details
Cr. M.P. No.978 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.978 of 2023 ------ Ravi Kumar Sahu, aged about 26 years, son of Jadmohan Sahu, Resident of Village Ramnagar Senha, P.O.- Senha, P.S. Senha, District Lohardaga Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand Party ------ … … Opposite For the Petitioner For the State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Subhneet Jha, Advocate Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Shailendra Kr. Tiwari, 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 the order dated 12.01.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga in Criminal Revision No.32 of 2022 whereby and where under the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the criminal revision which was filed challenging the order dated 29.11.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga in Misc. Cr. Application No.1645 of 2022 in connection with Lohardaga P.S. Case No.254 of 2022 corresponding to G.R. No.620 of 2022 whereby and where under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga has rejected the prayer for release of the vehicle of the petitioner being Hyundai Car Grand i10 bearing registration No. JH01CT 3409 as well as the order dated 29.11.2022 passed in 1 Cr. M.P. No.978 of 2023 connection with said case by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga. 3. The brief facts of the case is that Lohardaga P.S. Case No.254 of 2022 has been instituted on the allegation that the said Hyundai Car Grand i10 bearing registration No. JH01CT 3409 being rashly and negligently driven, dashed the informant of the said case who was riding the motorcycle along with a pillion rider and injured them. On the basis of the said written report of the informant, Lohardaga P.S. Case No.254 of 2022 has been registered for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 427 of the Indian Penal Code. The vehicle in question was not covered by the policy of insurance against third party risk and on that ground, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga rejected the prayer for release of the vehicle. The petitioner filed Criminal Revision No.32 of 2022 before the learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga but the learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga taking note of Rule 6 (1) of the Jharkhand Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 2019, observed that since the vehicle in question was not covered under third party risk, the vehicle cannot be released in favour of the petitioner unless he furnishes a security to the satisfaction of the court to pay compensation that may be awarded in a claim case arising out of such accident. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the vehicle being Hyundai Car Grand i10 bearing registration No. JH01CT 3409 is allowed to be kept under open sky within the premises of the police station, the same will lose its utility and the condition of the vehicle will be deteriorated. It is next submitted that there is no chance of the trial being concluded in the 2 Cr. M.P. No.978 of 2023 near future. It is then submitted that neither the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga nor the learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga awarded any opportunity to the petitioner to furnish sufficient security to the satisfaction of the court; to pay the compensation, if any, awarded in any motor vehicle accident claims application and the petitioner is ready and willing to furnish sufficient security. It is also submitted that the Investigating Officer, in no uncertain manner has mentioned that he has no objection for release of the said vehicle. Hence, it is submitted that the order dated 12.01.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga in Criminal Revision No.32 of 2022 whereby and where under the learned Sessions Judge rejected the criminal revision which was filed challenging the order dated 29.11.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga in Misc. Cr. Application No.1645 of 2022 in connection with Lohardaga P.S. Case No.254 of 2022 corresponding to G.R. No.620 of 2022 whereby and where under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga rejected the prayer for release of the vehicle of the petitioner being Hyundai Car Grand i10 bearing registration No. JH01CT 3409; as well as the order dated 29.11.2022 passed in connection with said case by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga, being not sustainable in law, be quashed and set aside. 5. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State submits that the Investigating Officer has not furnished proper information and has wrongly accorded No Objection for release of the vehicle and there is neither any illegality in the order 29.11.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga in Misc. Cr. Application No.1645 of 2022 nor in the 3 Cr. M.P. No.978 of 2023 order dated 12.01.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga in Criminal Revision No.32 of 2022. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully 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 V. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283, 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, when it is ordered to be produced. 7. Now, coming to the facts of the case, it is the undisputed fact that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle. It is certainly not desirable that a vehicle seized by the police will be kept under open sky when there is no chance of the trial being concluded within any reasonable time. 8. At this stage, it is pertinent to refer to the Rule 6 of the Jharkhand Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 2019 has been framed, 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 4 Cr. M.P. No.978 of 2023 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) 9. Now coming to the facts of the case, this Court has no hesitation in holding that both the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga and the learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga have failed to act in accordance with Rule -6 of the Jharkhand Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 2019 and have unnecessarily allowed the vehicle to be kept under open sky; thereby diminishing its value. As already indicated above, Rule -6 of the Jharkhand Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 2019 mandates that if any 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; and if otherwise, the person 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 is that in such a case the registered owner must be asked to furnish sufficient security to the satisfaction of the court to pay compensation that may be awarded in a claim case arising out of such accident. But neither the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga nor the learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga has given any opportunity to the owner of the vehicle being the petitioner of this case 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 5 Cr. M.P. No.978 of 2023 seized vehicle allegedly involved in the accident, has been seized about more than a year ago, neither the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga nor the learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga, has taken any step 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 insurance policy covering the third-party risks, shall be sold off in public auction by the magistrate having jurisdiction over the area; where accident occurred. 10. Under such circumstances, both the order dated 29.11.2022 passed in Misc. Cr. Application No.1645 of 2022 in connection with Lohardaga P.S. Case No. 254 of 2022 corresponding to G.R. No.620 of 2022 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga and order dated 12.01.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga in Criminal Revision No.32 of 2022 being not sustainable in law, are quashed and set aside and the prayer of the petitioner for release of the Hyundai Car being Grand i10 bearing registration No. JH01CT 3409, is allowed, subject to the petitioner furnishing sufficient security of Rs.10,00,000/- with two solvent sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga to pay compensation that may be awarded, in any claim case arising out of the said accident. 11. Accordingly, the petitioner who is the registered owner of vehicle sought to be released being the Hyundai Car Grand i10 bearing registration No. JH01CT 3409 is directed to furnish sufficient security of Rs.10,00,000/- with two solvent sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga undertaking to pay 6 Cr. M.P. No.978 of 2023 compensation that may be awarded in any claim case arising out of such accident and in case such security is furnished, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga is directed to release the said vehicle being the Hyundai Car Grand i10 bearing registration No. JH01CT 3409 in favour of the petitioner, upon his additionally undertaking to produce the vehicle in question, which is released, as and when required by the learned trial court or by the investigating officer of the case and any other conditions that may be imposed by the learned trial court. 12.
Decision
In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 05th of February, 2024 AFR/ Animesh 7