The main legal point established is that the provisions of Section 105E and Chapter VIIA of the Code are not applicable to general offences under the Indian Penal Code, and the court can invoke its inherent powers under Section 482 to quash orders that are without jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Mehta, J. - Invoking inherent powers of this Court, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code'), the petitioner has challenged the order dated 02.02.2022 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pokran, District Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court') whereby his application under Section 457 of the Code for release of his vehicle i.e. Hyundai Venue Car bearing registration No. RJ-19-CK-9084 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Car') has been allowed subject to furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs. 50,000/-.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the vehicle in question came to be seized in furtherance of FIR No. 56/2021 dated 10.09.2021, which was registered pursuant to a complaint lodged against the petitioner levelling allegations of offence punishable under Sections 420, 406 & 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Learned counsel argued that the vehicle in question was not involved in the commission of any offence, hence, the provisions of Section 102 of the Code do not apply. Moreso, since the property in question is not required for the purpose of investigation of the offence(s) alleged against the petitioner, the impugned condition of furnishing bank guarantee of Rs. 50,000/- is not only onerous but also contrary to law and facts involved in the present case.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor at the outset raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner is required to avail remedy of revision before the competent Court and the present petition under Section 482 of the Code is not maintainable.

5. It was also argued that the condition of furnishing bank guarantee of Rs. 50,000/- is justified in light of Sections 105C to 105E of the Code, which provide for forfeiture of the property.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner though conceded that revision would lie against the impugned order but since the post of Additional District Judge, Pokran is lying vacant and no Officer has been appointed in the Court of Additional District Judge, Pokran, the remedy of revision is inefficacious, because only matters of grave urgency are being taken up by the link Court.

7. Heard.

8. Indisputably, it is neither the allegation in the FIR that the Car has been procured by cheating the complainant nor it is a case of the respondent that the petitioner has used the Car for the purpose of cheating the complainant.

9. In light of the above situation, seizure of the Car under the provisions of the Code is unwarranted if not unauthorized. The police possesses power to seize a property under Section 102 of the Code only if the property is alleged or suspected to have been stolen or which creates suspicion of commission of an offence.

10. The basic ingredients under Section 102 of the Code don't exist in the present case. That apart, the vehicle in question by no stretch of imagination can be forfeited in the facts of the present case.

11. It is informed that for dealing with the cases of the Additional District Judge, Pokran, a Camp Court in Pokran is being held three days in second week and three days in fourth week of every month, hence remedy of revision is inefficacious.

12. Moreover, as the condition of furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs. 50,000/- is ex-facie without jurisdiction, this Court is persuaded to invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code.

13. According to this Court, the provisions of Section 105E of the Code or even entire Chapter VIIA is not applicable in relation to general offences under the Indian Penal Code and it is only applicable to situations, where an offence is committed in a contracting country. Said view is fully fortified by the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Balram Mihani & Ors., reported in (2010) 2SCC 602. Relevant extract of the judgment being reproduced hereinfra:-

"8. We have considered the judgment as also the contentions raised by the learned counsel. We have