Opposite Party v. For the
Case Details
1 Cr.M.P. No. 3040 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 3040 of 2022 Jagdeo Pahan, aged about 30 years, son of Baray Pahan, resident of village- Baruhatu, P.O.- Baruhatu, P.S.- Lowahatu, District- Ranchi …... Petitioner The State of Jharkhand ….. Opposite Party Versus For the Petitioner For the State : Mr. Amit Kr. Sinha, Adv. : Ms. Kumari Rashmi, Addl. PP P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:-
Legal Reasoning
Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this court under section 482 Cr.P.C., with a prayer for quashing the order dated 02.08.2022 passed by learned JMFC- XXII, Ranchi in Misc. Cr. Application No. 4458 of 2022 arising out of Dasam Fall P.S. case no. 17 of 2022 pending in the court of JMFC, XXII, Ranchi. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner is the owner of the tractor bearing registration no. JH01DY-0261 , which was involved in an accident resulting in death of the driver of the said tractor namely Bhim Lohra. It is stated that the said Bhim Lohra was driving the said tractor rashly and negligently and as a result, the tractor turned turtle and the driver died on the spot. The vehicle i.e. the tractor in question was having all valid documents except the insurance as though the occurrence took place on 30.05.2022 the insurance policy was valid from 04.06.2022 to midnight of 03.06.2023 and the petitioner failed to produce the insurance documents covering the earlier period, during which, the alleged occurrence took place. Learned Magistrate vide order dated 02.08.2022, referred to the Rule 6 of Jharkhand Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rule, 2019, which reads as under :- 2 Cr.M.P. No. 3040 of 2022 “6.(1). No Court shall release a motor vehicle involved in an accident resulting in death of 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 circumstances 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) and observed that as the petitioner has not given any proposal of handing over of a reasonable compensatory amount that may be awarded in case the claim if any is upheld by learned tribunal for the Motor Vehicles Claims cases hence, it was not inclined to release the tractor and rejected the prayer for release of the tractor. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is crystal clear from the Rule 6 of Jharkhand Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 2019, that there is no absolute bar for release of the seized vehicle, even if the vehicle is not covered by an insurance policy, on the date of accident when for the subsequent period, the vehicle is having insurance policy, if the registered owner furnishes sufficient security to the satisfaction of the court to pay compensation that may be awarded, in claim case, arising out of such accident. It is next submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to furnish sufficient security to the satisfaction of the court to pay compensation that may be awarded in any claim case arising out of the accident but no opportunity was ever given for the same to the petitioner, by the learned Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the order dated 16.08.2021 in CrMP no. 383 of 2021 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this court. It is next submitted that the vehicle in question is a commercial vehicle and it is being kept under open sky in police station which will damage the vehicle and diminish its value, 3 Cr.M.P. No. 3040 of 2022 hence it is submitted that the order dated 02.08.2022 passed by learned JMFC-XXII, Ranchi in Misc. Cr. Application No. 4458 of 2022 arising out of Dasam Fall P.S. case no. 17 of 2022 pending in the court of JMFC, XXII, Ranchi be set aside and the prayer of the petitioner for the release of the said vehicle be allowed. 5. Learned Addl. PP submits that if the petitioner is ready and willing to furnish sufficient security to the satisfaction of the court to pay the compensation, then, the State has no serious objection for release of the vehicle. 6. Having heard the 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 v. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283 that it is of no use to keep seized vehicles at the Police Station for a long period and it is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicle, if required at any point of time, that can be ordered to be produced. 7. Now coming to the facts of the case, undisputedly, the petitioner is the owner of the truck and it is certainly not desirable that the vehicle be kept in police station, under open sky, when there is no chance of trial being concluded within a reasonable time as it is crystal clear from Rule 6 of Jharkhand Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 2019, that the same certainly does not prohibit the court from releasing the vehicle; if the owner furnishes sufficient security to the satisfaction of the court to pay compensation amount that may be awarded in claim case arising out of such accident if the petitioner is ready and willing to furnish such security in terms of Rule 6 of Jharkhand Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 2019. 8. Under such circumstances, this court has no hesitation in holding that in the order dated 02.08.2022 passed by learned JMFC-XXII, Ranchi in Misc. Cr. Application No. 4458 of 2022 arising out of Dasam Fall P.S. case no. 17 of 2022, the learned JMFC- XXII, Ranchi has failed to act in accordance with Rule 6 of Jharkhand 4 Cr.M.P. No. 3040 of 2022 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, absence of insurance policy covering the third party risks will not be an impediment for release of the vehicle but only 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 the compensation, that may be awarded in a claim case arising out of such accident but the learned Magistrate has failed to give an 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, though as already indicated above the petitioner is ready and willing for the same. 9. From the facts of the case, it is crystal clear that though the seized vehicle allegedly involved in the accident, was seized about an year ago, learned Judicial Magistrate, has not taken any step to ensure compliance of Rule 6 (ii) of Jharkhand Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 2019, which envisages that the motor vehicle- the owner of which, fails to furnish the insurance policy, covering 3rd party risk, shall be sold in public auction by magistrate having jurisdiction over the area, where the accident occurred. 10. Under such circumstances, the order dated 02.08.2022 passed by learned JMFC-XXII, Ranchi in Misc. Cr. Application No. 4458 of 2022 arising out of Dasam Fall P.S. case no. 17 of 2022 pending in the court of JMFC, XXII, Ranchi being not sustainable in law, is set aside and the prayer of the petitioner for release of the said tractor bearing registration no. JH01DY-0261 is allowed subject to the petitioner’s furnishing sufficient security to the satisfaction of JMFC, XXII, Ranchi to pay the compensation amount that may be awarded in a claim case arising out the said accident. 11. Accordingly, the petitioner who is a registered owner of the vehicle sought to be released being the tractor bearing registration no. JH01DY-0261, is directed to furnish sufficient security to the satisfaction of learned JMFC, XXII, Ranchi to pay the compensation amount that may be awarded in the claim case 5 Cr.M.P. No. 3040 of 2022 arising out the said accident and in case, such security is furnished, learned JMFC, XXII, Ranchi, is directed to release the tractor bearing registration no. JH01DY-0261 in favour of the petitioner with an undertaking to produce the vehicle as and when required by the learned trial court or by Investigating Officer of the case and that he will not transfer, part away with the ownership of the said vehicle during the pendency of the case or any other condition, if any, to be imposed by the trial court. 12.
Decision
In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 17th May, 2023 Smita /AFR (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)