State of Rajasthan, Through P.P v. Vijay Singh, Head Constable No

Judgment

3. State of Rajasthan, Through P.P. Versus Vijay Singh, Head Constable No. 1282 Police Station Kotwali District Dholpur. Dy. Director, Income Tax Department, DDIT/ADIT (INV.) FAIU, Jaipur. Connected With ----Respondents S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5098/2024 Gopal Singh S/o Kaptan Singh, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village Tagawali Police Station Kotwali Tehsil And District Dholpur. ----Petitioner

3. State of Rajasthan, Through PP Versus Vijay Singh, Head Constable No. 1282 Police Station Kotwali District Dholpur. Dy. Director, Income Tax Department, DDIT/ADIT (INV.) FAIU, Jaipur. ----Respondents S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5117/2024

Hariom Garg S/o Shripat Lal, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Kheragarh, Police Station And Tehsil Kheragarh, District Agra (Up). ----Petitioner

3. State of Rajasthan, Through P.P. Versus Vijay Singh, Head Constable No. 1282 Police Station Kotwali District Dholpur. Dy. Director, Income Tax Department, DDIT/ADIT (INV.) FAIU, Jaipur. ----Respondents S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5121/2024 Rajni Mittal W/o Late Babulal Mittal, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Village Tasimo Police Station Saipau District Dholpur (Raj.) ----Petitioner

3. State of Rajasthan, Through PP Versus Vijay Singh, Head Constable No. 1282 Police Station Kotwali District Dholpur. Dy. Director, Income Tax Department, DDIT/ADIT (INV.) FAIU, Jaipur. [2025:RJ-JP:36639] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-5091/2024] ----Respondents S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6110/2024 Pooja Mittal W/o Hani Singhal, D/o Late Babulal Mittal, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Tasimo P.S. Saipau Distt. Dholpur. ----Petitioner

3. State of Rajasthan, Through P.P. Versus Vijay Singh, Head Constable No. 1282 Police Station Kotwali District Dholpur. Dy. Director, Income Tax Department, DDIT/ADIT (INV.) FAIU, Jaipur. ----Respondents S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6152/2024 Sunita Devi W/o Late Laxminarayan, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Kamala Colony Dholpur, Police Station Nihalganj District Dholpur Raj. ----Petitioner

3. State of Rajasthan, Through P.P. Versus Vijay Singh, Head Constable No. 1282 Police Station Kotwali District Dholpur. Dy. Director, Income Tax Department, DDIT/ADIT (INV.) FAIU, Jaipur. ----Respondents S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6158/2024 Mohit Gupta S/o Ramsewak Gupta, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Silvar Town Coloney Agra, District Agra. ----Petitioner

3. State of Rajasthan, Through P.P. Versus Vijay Singh, Head Constable No. 1282 Police Station Kotwali District Dholpur. Dy. Director, Income Tax Department, DDIT/ADIT (INV.) FAIU, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sumit Kumar Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP Mr. Siddharth Bapna for Mr. Mehyul Mittal Mr. Rahul Kumar, Ms. Chinki Choudhary [2025:RJ-JP:36639] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-5091/2024] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 10/09/2025

1. In all these petitions, an identical issue is involved in respect of release of cash amount, which has been declined by the concerned Judicial Magistrate, so also the Revision Petition filed thereagainst has also been dismissed vide impugned orders dated

09.02.2024, hence, these petitions have been heard together and would stand decided by this common order.

2. The backdrop of relevant facts in nutshell are that a cash amount of Rs. 22,95,520/- was seized from the custody of one Vivek Kumar Goyal on 08.09.2023 when he was travelling in a vehicle Brezza Car bearing registration No. MP-06-ZB-9708. The vehicle was intercepted by the Police and since source of having possession of such a huge amount in cash by Vivek Goyal, same was seized by the Police under Section 102 Cr.P.C.

3. It appears that later on petitioners approached before the concerned Judicial Magistrate, stating inter alia, that such an amount belong to petitioners, who handed over such amount to Vivek Goyal in order to purchase commodity. The independent applications moved by each petitioner has been dismissed by separate order and the revision petition filed thereagainst has also been rejected, hence, these petitions have been filed.

4. Counsel appearing on behalf of Income Tax Department, apprised the Court that on receiving the information, inquiry against Vivek Goyal was initiated under Section 131(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since Vivek Goyal did not turn up, the inquiry has been culminated and traveled to the concerned [2025:RJ-JP:36639] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-5091/2024] Assessing Officer to make the assessment as per the relevant Sections of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

5. It has been pointed out that inquiry before the Assessing Officer, ITO Ward Morena, Madhya Pradesh, is pending and requisition dated 07.05.2025 to handover the cash amount laying in custody of Police has been issued to the concerned SHO Kotwali District Dholpur. The copy of requisition dated 07.05.2025 has been placed on record.

6. Counsel appearing on behalf of Income Tax Department submits that if petitioners approach before the Assessing Officer along with Vivek Goyal and explain the source of such cash amount and obtained NOC, then such amount may be released to the petitioners or Vivek Goyal in accordance with law.

7. In view of above contention of counsel of Income Tax Department, counsel for petitioners is agreeable to approach before the Assessing Officer in order to obtain NOC from the Income Tax Department and to seek release of the cash amount.

8. It is hereby observed that since as per requisition dated

07.05.2025, the amount in question has been asked to be handed over by the SHO Kotwali, District Dholpur to the Income Tax Department, same is deemed to be in custody and possession of Income Tax Department, hence, if NOC is issued, the amount may be released to the petitioners or Vivek Goyal whosoever may claim for refund of amount by the Income Tax Department itself.

9. In view of above, no interference in the impugned orders dated 09.02.2024 is warranted and all petitions stands disposed of. [2025:RJ-JP:36639] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-5091/2024]

10. It is expected that the proceedings may be decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of appearance of petitioners and Vivek Goyal before the concerned Assessing Officer.

11. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J NITIN /191-197