SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Pat) 746

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.
Ramvachan Sahni Son of Late Jhagru Sahni - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar through the District Collector and ors. - Opposite Party
Criminal Miscellaneous No.50380 of 2024 In Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1699 of 2023
Decided On : 04-07-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr.Vijay Shankar Shrivastava, Advocate
For the Opposite Party : Mr.Navin Kumar Pandey, APP, Mr.Naresh Dikshit, Spl.PP.

The ownership of a registered vehicle must be respected, and any seizure based on incorrect identification violates rights, necessitating timely judicial review.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 482 - Quashing an order due to improper vehicle seizure - As per legal precedents, the ownership of a registered vehicle must be respected, and incorrect identification in seizure leads to violation of rights. (Paras 2-17)

(B) Property Seizure - Courts are required to ensure timely resolution regarding seized property, and undue delays in returning property can contravene principles of justice. (Paras 16-18)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought quashing of an order rejecting release of a JCB vehicle seized in connection with an FIR related to illegal mining. The petitioner established ownership, and the seizure was improperly recorded with a different vehicle description.

Findings of Court:
The petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle, and the incorrect seizure details warrant quashing of the trial court's order.

Issues: The court addressed whether the petitioner was wrongly denied the release of their vehicle based on incorrect details during the seizure process.

Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the principle that ownership rights must be preserved and emphasized the necessity for prompt action regarding seized vehicles.

Result: Application allowed; the order impugned was quashed, and directions for the release of the vehicle were provided.

Table of Content
1. background of seizure and petitioner ownership (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. arguments for vehicle return and incorrect seizure details (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. opposition to the petition and details on vehicle seizure (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
4. court observations on ownership and legal responsibilities (Para 15 , 16)
5. quashing of order and release of the vehicle (Para 17 , 18)
6. final directions on fine payment and document submission (Para 19 , 20 , 21)

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present application has been preferred under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, the ‘Cr.P.C.’) as to quash the order dated 15.07.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-19, East Champaran, Motihari, in connection with Cr. Revision No. 125/2023 arising out of Chakia P.S. Case No. 302 of 2022, whereby and whereunder learned trial court has been pleased to reject the petition, which was filed by the petitioner against the order dated 30.01.2023 passed by learned J.M. - 1st Class, Motihari for release of the vehicle namely, JCB bearing Registration No. BR31G-7913, Chassis No. 001848622, Engine No. H0052587 in favour of the petitioner, as the petitioner was the owner of the aforesaid vehicle.

3. The brief facts of this case is that one Chotan Kumar (the informant) alleged that on 13-07-2022 at 11:30 hrs. in the night while he was coming to his house, he saw that illegal mining of sand on the bank of Gandhak river was going on making air dusty, due to which the informant asked the accused persons, named in the FIR, to excavate the sand properly, but all the accused persons surrounded him and one Tunna Singh, who was armed with knife, gave one blow on his head causing head injury. It is further alleged that Abhishek Singh, who was also armed with iron rod, assaulted him, whereafter accused persons taken away Rs. 10,000/- from him and also snatched his mobile phone.

4. On the basis of aforesaid written information Chakia P.S. Case No.-302 of 2022 dated 14-07-2022 u/s 341, 323, 324, 379,34 of the IPC and section-56 of the Bihar Mining Rule, 2019 was instituted against five FIR named accused persons. Petitioner is not accused.

5. After institution of the FIR of Chakia P.S. Case No.302 o f 2022, the investigating officer started investigation and during the course of investigation, on 14-07-2022 itself, the vehicle namely, JCB bearing Registration No BR31G7913, Chasis No.- 001848622, Engine No.-H0052587 was seized, but details of the aforesaid vehicle was not mentioned in the seizure list rather other Chasis No.- 332Y17472095647 and Engine No.- H00052537 in place of aforesaid JCB vehicle was made, which belongs to this petitioner. This fact has also come in Paragraph No.- 3 of the case dairy of Chakia P.S. Case No.- 302 of 2022.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that during the course of investigation, the I.O. of Chakia P.S. Case No. 302 of 2022 made an application with regard to verification of the owner of JCB bearing Chassis No. 332Y17472095647 and Engine No. H00052537.

7. It is submitted that the Investigating Officer received report from the Mining Development Officer East Champaran at Motihari vide letter No.- 469/M dated 06-08- 2022 in which the description of vehicle namely JCB has been given as Chassis No. 332Y17472095647 and Engine No.- H00052537. The Mining development Officer East Champaran at Motihari has also imposed fine of Rs. 4,42,300/- including compounding fees against the aforesaid JCB machine bearing Chassis No.-332Y17472095647 and Engine No. H00052537, not against the JCB of the petitioner bearing Registration No. BR31G7913, Chassis No. 001848622, Engine No. H0052587.

8. Learned counsel further submitted that the Investigating Officer also call for a report from the District Transport Officer, who submitted its report with regard to the vehicle of the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that the I.O. of this case

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top