Judgment · High Court · 2026

937 Cri.WP-379.2026.odt11.03.2026 respectively addressed by presentpetitioner to the concerned respondent authoritiesto release the vehicle i.e. Tata LPK 1618 CRBS IVhaving registration No. MH-22-AN-7171 forthwithin favour of the present petitioner in the light oforder Below Exh-1 dated 24.02.2026 passed byLd. JMFC, Parner in Crim. M.A. No.23/2026 withfurther direction to initiate proper inquiry againstthe concerned earring officers who are responsiblefor such inaction and delaying process of actualrelease of vehicle.D]By issuing Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ ordirection in the like nature, thereby quash and setaside the notice dated 23.02.2026 issued byrespondent no.5-Sub Divisional Officer, Shrigonda, Parner Division, Dist. Ahilyanagar”.2.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thevehicle of the petitioner viz: Tata LPK 1618 CRBS IV havingregistration No. MH-22-AN-7171 (hereinafter called as the“said vehicle”) was seized pursuant to F.I.R. bearing Crime No.0003/2026 registered with Parner Police Station for theoffences punishable under Sections 134(A), 134(B), 184 ofMotor Vehicles Act and Sections 106 (1), 125(a), 125(b), 281and 324(4) of Bharatiya Naya Sanhita, 2023 (for the brevity, hereinafter referred to as “BNS 2023”). It is further contendedthat the petitioner preferred Crim.M.A. No. 23/2026 before thelearned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) (hereinafter called as (3) 937 Cri.WP-379.2026.odt“”learned J.M.F.C”), Parner for release of the said vehicle. Thelearned Magistrate vide order dated 24.02.2026, directed thepolice authorities to release the said vehicle on certain termsand conditions. Learned counsel for the petitioner furthersubmitted would further submit that despite there being anorder passed by the learned J.M.F.C., the respondents are notreleasing the said vehicle. He therefore submits that the writpetition deserves to be allowed by directing the respondents torelease the said vehicle.3.Per contra, learned A.P.P. would submit that though thelearned J.M.F.C. has directed the police authorities to releasethe said vehicle however pursuant to the action initiated by therespondent Revenue Authorities under Section 48(7) of theMaharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for the sake of brevityhereinafter referred to as “MLR Code”) the said vehicle cannotbe released. He would further submit that the Revenueauthority has also passed an order under Section 48(7) of theMLR Code thereby imposing penalty on the petitioner to thetune of Rs. 3,20,000/-. He would further submit that the saidvehicle has been seized by Revenue Authority by resorting tothe provisions of MLR Code and if at all the petitioner isaggrieved, the petitioner may avail alternate remedy asavailable under MLR Code. He therefore urged that the writ (4) 937 Cri.WP-379.2026.odtpetition deserves to be dismissed.4.After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner andthe learned APP, we find that admittedly there is an orderpassed by the learned J.M.F.C. dated 24.02.2026 in Cri.M.A.No. 23/2026 thereby directing release of the aforesaid vehicle.We find that if the respondents contend that penalty underSection 48(7) of MLR Code to the tune of Rs. 3,20,000/- hasbeen imposed on the petitioner, the petitioner can at the mostbe saddled with such penalty and as far as release of the saidvehicle is concerned, on recovery of the said penalty, thevehicle could have been released. Be that as it may, we findthat the said vehicle cannot be kept idle and it needs to bereleased on petitioner’s depositing 50% of the penalty imposedby the Revenue authority.5.This Court in the case of Tanvir Kadir Shaikh vs TheState of Maharashtra and others decided on 02.04.2024 inWrit Petition No.302 of 2026, has already taken a view that inthe light of the order passed by competent criminal courtthereby directing the Authorities to release the vehicle, Revenue Authorities, unless resorting to the provisions ofSection 48(8) (1) and (2) of MLR Code, cannot retain thevehicle. This Court however has directed the petitioner thereinto deposit 50% of the penalty imposed on him. (5) 937 Cri.WP-379.2026.odt6.In the present case, admittedly the Revenue Authoritieshave imposed penalty of Rs. 3,20,000/- on the petitioner. Wetherefore direct the respondents Authorities to release theaforesaid vehicle of the petitioner subject to petitioner’sdepositing 50% of the penalty imposed on him, within twoweeks from today. We make it clear that deposit of 50% of theamount of penalty will be condition precedent for release ofvehicle. We make it clear that if the petitioner chose tochallenge the order of imposition of penalty, the amountdeposited pursuant to this order, will be taken intoconsideration by the appellate authority as and when appealwould be decided. In case the petitioner choose not to fileappeal challenging imposition of penalty, the respondentAuthorities are at liberty to recover the remaining penalty.7.With these directions, the writ petition stands disposedof.(ABASAHEB D. SHINDE)(SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE) JUDGEJUDGEVD_Dhirde