The court affirmed that registered owners of seized vehicles, who are not accused, should have their vehicles released unless required for investigation, ensuring protection of ownership rights.

JUDGMENT :

SAVITRI RATHO, J.

1. This Revision has been filed challenging the order dated 15.03.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 01 of 2024 which arises out of Plantsite PS Case No. 245 of 2023, corresponding to GR Case No. 1213 of 2023, which is now pending before the learned Adhoc Additional District & Sessions Judge (POCSO) (Fast Track) Special Court, Rourkela in ST Case No. 247 of 2023.

2. The petitioner claims to be the registered owner of Maruti Suzuki Car bearing Registration No. OD-14-S-3696, which has been seized in connection with the above case. The allegation was that Mojammil Hussain the husband of the victim and the co-accused Afroz Akta @ Papu misbehaved with the petitioner, while they were travelling in the said car. The victim was forcibly taken into the said car by the co-accused person, and he tried to force himself on her. When she protested her husband Mojammil Hussain, he assaulted her with knife.

3. Learned trial Court heard both the counsel and submits that the FIR story reveals that the victim along with her two children were residing in the rented house of Abas building. Her husband always threatened her, forced her to keep illicit relationship with Afroz Aktar @ Papu. The said Papu and her husband made sexual relationship with her forcibly against her will and threatening her with dire consequence when she protested. This event continued for more than 7 months. As such she left that house and shifted to Panposh, Rourkela and is residing in a rented house. Here also Papu and her husband regularly harassed her. On 20.06.2023 while she was at her rented house with her children her husband and one Dannish Hussen came and threatened her with a knife and brought her and her children by threatening to kill her. On the way the husband took Papu to the car and compelled her to keep physical relationship with her. In spite her denial he assaulted her with a knife for which she sustained injuries on her head.

During the course of investigation, the I.O seized the Maruti Suzuki car bearing Registration No. OD-14S-3696. Perusal of the record further showed that the I.O has submitted preliminary charge sheet keeping the investigation open for Nikahanama register and also about the car. Since the investigation was not yet completed, he was not inclined to release the seized Maruti Suzuki car in zima and accordingly the Misc. Case was rejected.

4. Mr. R. N. Prusty, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not an accused in the case. The petitioner earns his living from the hire charges of the vehicle and due to detention of the vehicle in the Champua Police Station he is suffering financial loss each day and the condition of the vehicle is also deteriorating as it is exposed to the elements (sun & rain). He has filed the Contract Carriage (Motor Cab) permit and Registration certificate of the car, which indicates that the said car has been registered in his name. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambala Desai and others vs. State of Gujarat , (2002) 10 SCC 283 : (2003) 24 OCR SC 444, he prays the vehicle may be released in his favour during pendency of the trial.

5. Ms. S. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that she has received instruction that the vehicle is no longer required for investigation and the same may be released in favour of the petitioner, subject to the condition that he produces it in the Court in case of necessity and as and when (directed by the Court), and subject to verification of his ownership.

6. In the case of Sundarbhai (supra) in the matter of seizure and release of vehicle, the Supreme Court has held as follows:

“Vehicles

15.