Insurers can auction seized vehicles under conditions ensuring proceeds are subject to court adjudication, preventing deterioration of property.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner M/s Cholamandalm Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to 'Insurance Company') through its authorized signatory has preferred this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 23.05.2022 passed in Misc. Application No. 12/2022, by learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Aklera District Jhalawar whereby the application of the petitioner Insurance Company seeking permission to sale the vehicle (Toyota Fortuner) No. KA 01 MT 0984 was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that a complaint regarding theft of the aforesaid Toyota Fortuner was filed at Police Station Uperpet, Bengaluru by its registered owner Biramram. Since the vehicle was insured with the petitioner Insurance Company, the entire claim amount of the aforesaid vehicle was paid to the owner as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and after settling the entire claim, the Insurance Company became the exclusive owner of the vehicle. After some time, the aforesaid vehicle Toyota Fortuner came to be seized by the Police Station Aklera, Jhalawar in connection with FIR No. 248/2021 registered for offences under Sections 8/15 and 8/29 of the NDPS Act. After coming across of this fact, the Insurance Company moved an application under Section 457 Cr.PC. before learned District & Sessions Judge, Aklera for release of the vehicle in question on supurdagi. The said application was allowed by the learned court below vide order dated 01.02.2022 and the vehicle in question was released in favour of the petitioner Insurance Company. However, since the vehicle was allegedly involved in a case registered under the NDPS Act, while releasing the vehicle on supurdagi, certain conditions were also imposed by the learned court below in its order dated 01.02.2022. Out of those conditions, one condition with which the Insurance Company is aggrieved, was that the petitioner Insurance Company will not transfer or dispose of the vehicle in question. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said condition, the petitioner Insurance Company moved an application (No. 12/2022) before the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Aklera seeking permission to transfer, sale, auction or dispose of the vehicle in question. However, the learned court below dismissed the application of the petitioner Insurance Company vide order dated 23.05.2022. Hence, this misc. petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner Insurance Company is reputed Insurance company and the vehicle has already been released in its favour on Supurdagi by the learned court below vide order date 01.02.2022. He further submits that the petitioner Insurance Company is ready to comply with the procedure defined in Section 52A of the NDPS Act for making the clarification of inventory of the case property so that same will be treated as primary evidence in the absence of or disposal of the case property during trial. He also submits that the first registered owner namely Biramram, with whom the Insurance Company has settled the claim, has also not been found involved in the FIR registered under the NDPS Act. He argues that the since the petitioner Company involves in insurance business, the vehicle in question is of no use for it except to sell, transfer or auction to some other party. Further, the vehicle in question was being junked day by day as the same was lying idle for a long period of time. He thus, prays that permission to sale, auction or transfer the vehicle in question may be granted. He has placed reliance upon the following judgments:

(i) Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638

(ii) General Insurance Council & Ors. v. State of A.P. & Ors. being Writ Petition (C) No. 14 of 2008 decided on 19.04.2010 reported in (2010) 6 SCC 768

(iii) Esskay Auto Finance Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, 2017 SCC Online Raj 2711

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the instance misc. petition. He submits