Arun Jain v. State of U.P. and Another) in Case Crime No
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:134439 Court No. - 77 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7644 of 2024 Applicant :- Rajendra Kumar Jain Opposite Party :- State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar,Krishna Sharma,Sandeep Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vivek Tripathi Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State. Though the name of Mr. Vivek Tripathi, is published in the cause list as counsel for opposite party-2 but neither he nor any one on his behalf is present to oppose this application. 2. Applicant- Rajendra Kumar Jain has approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for the following relief: "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this application and quash the impugned order dated 14.02.2024 passed. by the court of Additional District and Session Judge Court No. 3 Ghaziabad in Criminal Revision No. 165 of 2021, Computer No. 172 of 2021 (Arun Jain vs State of U.P. and Another) in Case Crime No 110 of 2021, under section 406 IPC, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Ghaziabad otherwise the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. it is further prayed that this Hon ble court may kindly be pleased to stay the impugned order dated 14.02.2024 passed by court of Additional District and Session Judge Court No. 3 Ghaziabad in Criminal Revision No. 165 of 2021, Computer No. 172 of 2021 (Arun Jain vs State of U.P. and Another) in Case Crime No 110 of 2021, under section 406 IPC, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Ghaziabad, otherwise the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury." 3. Record shows that applicant-Rajendra Kumar Jain filed a release application in terms of Section 451 Cr.P.C. before the concerned Magistrate seeking release of the disputed vehicle i.e. HONDA MOBILA bearing Registration No. UP-14-CW- 9136, which is case property in Case Crime No. 110 of 2021, under Section 406 IPC, Police Station-Mahila Thana, District- Ghaziabad. 4. The release application filed by applicant was allowed by concerned Magistrate i.e. Civil Judge (Junior Division) FTC-1, Ghaziabad, vide order dated 07.08.2021 primarily on the ground that since applicant is the registered owner of the vehicle in dispute, therefore, he is entitled to seek release of the same in his favour. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the above order dated 07.08.2021, opposite party-2 Arun Jain filed a revision before the District and Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, which was registered Criminal Revision No. 165 of 2021 (Arun Jain Vs. State of U.P. and Another). Aforementioned revision came to the allowed, vide order dated 14.02.2014 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Ghaziabad. 6. It is against above order dated 14.02.2024 passed by Court below that applicant Rajendra Kumar Jain has approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 7. Learned counsel for applicant invited the attention of Court to paragraph 14 of the affidavit and with reference to above, it is contended by him that since applicant is the registered owner of the vehicle in dispute, therefore, no illegality was committed by the concerned Magistrate in allowing the release application filed by applicant and directing the release of the disputed vehicle in favour of applicant. The Court below has set aside the order dated 07.08.2021 passed by Magistrate only on the ground that the provisions of Sections 15 and 16 of Hindu Succession Act have been overlooked. According to the learned counsel for applicant, the said issue cannot be examined in misc. proceedings under Section 451 Cr.P.C. but only by a competent Court of civil jurisdiction. Reference was also made to the judgment of Supreme Court in Manoj and Another Vs. Shriram Tpt. Finance Co. Ltd. and Others, JT 2002 (1) SC 293. He, therefore, submits that since applicant is registered owner of the vehicle in dispute, therefore, he is entitled to seek release of the disputed vehicle in his favour. It is further submitted that it is true that the disputed vehicle was given by the applicant to his daughter Khushbu at the time of her marriage but the same was for a limited purpose i.e. use and enjoyment only. As such, the same cannot be treated as a gift given at the time of marriage. On the above premise, he, therefore, submits that the order impugned dated 14.02.2024 passed by Court below cannot be sustained in law and fact. Consequently, the same is liable to be set aside by this Court. 8. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed this application. He submits that order impugned in present application is perfectly just and legal. Consequently, the same is not liable to be interfered with by this Court. Court below has allowed the revision filed by opposite party-2 on the ground that provisions of Sections 15 and 16 of the Hindu Succession Act are required to be looked into while deciding the release application filed by applicant. 9. According to the learned A.G.A., Khusbu (since deceased) is the daughter of applicant Rajendra Kumar Jain. Applicant solemnized the marriage of his daughter Khusbu with Arun Jain. From the aforesaid wedlock, a daughter Anishka Jain was born. Subsequently, Khusbu (the mother of Anishka Jain) died. It is then submitted by the learned A.G.A. that the disputed vehicle was given by the applicant to his daughter Khusbu at the time of her marriage as gift. By reason of above, the same upon the death of the daughter Khusbu shall be treated as part of her stridhan. Consequently, by virtue of the provisions contained in Sections 15 and 16 of the Hindu Succession Act, the daughter of the deceased mother shall inherit her stridhan. As such, no illegality has been committed by Court below in passing the order impugned. 10. It is then contended by the learned A.G.A. that since under the line of succession, the disputed vehicle shall be inherited by Anishka (the daughter of deceased Khushbu) and she being a minor, her interest is required to be protected by the Court as Court is the ultimate guardian of the minor. 11. On the above conspectus, the learned A.G.A. submits that Court below has not committed any illegality in passing the order impugned. The order passed by Court below is basically an order of remand, whereby no final adjudication of the rights, title and interest of the parties in the vehicle in disputed has been decided. In view of the findings returned by the Revisional Court, in support of the conclusion drawn, it cannot be said that the order impugned in present application is a vague order of remand or it has been passed to give an opportunity to either of the parties to fill in the lacuna in evidence. As such, no interference is warranted by this Court in present application. 12. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same. 13. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the issue as to whether the disputed vehicle was given by the applicant to his daughter at the time of marriage and therefore, is part of her stridhan and upon the death of daughter of applicant, the daughter of deceased shall inherit the same or whether the said vehicle was given by applicant to his daughter for use and enjoyment are such questions, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court. In view of above, this Court finds that the order of remand passed by Court below is neither vague nor it has been passed to fill in the lacuna in evidence. 14. As such, the present application fails and is liable to be dismissed. 15. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 21.8.2024 Arshad