Negligence of the police, collusion between private respondents and the police, and deprivation of property without criminal involvement.

Raj Mohan Singh, J.

This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of order dated 22.07.2014, whereby the application for releasing tractor along with fodder cutting machine/thresher on sapurdari was dismissed and order dated 16.02.2015 wherein revisional Court also held the revision to be not maintainable after recording that the tractor is lying unattended and unclaimed beside Police Station and police neither took the same in custody, nor took any action against its owner. Negligence of the police in performance of its duty was also found.

2. When the case came up for hearing before this Court on 01.06.2015, this Court passed the following order:-

"Learned counsel for the petitioner states that tractor and thrashing machine of the petitioner are not involved in any case as case property and still the same are lying parked under the domain and control of Police Station Tigaon.

The photographs placed on record are suggestive of the fact that tractor and thrashing machine are parked in front of Police Station itself along with two-three vehicles in defunct condition. The Police took the stand that site does not belong to the Police nor the vehicle is involved in any case.

The prayer for release of vehicle on supardari has been declined by the Courts below.

Notice of motion to respondents No.1 to 3 for 05.06.2015.

At this stage, Mr. Rajesh K. Sheoran, Addl. A.G., Haryana accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3. Let three copies of the petition be supplied to him by learned counsel for the petitioner.

In view of aforesaid, SHO Police Station, Tigaon is directed to file his specific affidavit to explain as follows:-

(i) Whether the tractor and thrashing machine are the case property in some criminal case. If not, then why the Police has not taken any action in terms of handing over the said vehicle to registered owner since 2012?

(ii) How the vehicle came to the spot and by whom it was brought?

(iii) Whether the vehicle was voluntarily parked by complainant in close vicinity of the Police Station?

(iv) If the vehicle is unclaimed by anyone, then what action has been taken by the Police in respect of unclaimed vehicle which is parked in close vicinity of Police Station for the last 3 three years.

The aforesaid affidavit be filed on or before the next date of hearing. Before filing the affidavit, office of Commissioner of Police, Faridabad be duly apprised of, about the issue involved."

3. Thereafter, notice was also issued to respondent No.4 vide order dated 05.06.2015. On 11.08.2015, the status report by way of affidavit of Commissioner of Police, Faridabad was taken into consideration and following order was passed:-

"In compliance of order dated 31.07.2015, learned State counsel has filed status report by way of an affidavit of Commissioner of Police, Faridabad in the Court today and the same is taken on record. A copy thereof has been supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Subhash Yadav, Commissioner of Police, Faridabad is also present in the Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 01.06.2015, the respondent-State was asked to file specific affidavit with regard to certain queries but said queries have not been responded in the affidavit. The justification with regard to delay has been made by the respondent-State by taking a new ground whereas from the very beginning, no action was taken by the police and the vehicle of the petitioner has now shown to be parked outside the police station whereas earlier it was parked inside the police premises. Learned counsel also submits that this stand has now been taken by the respondent- State just to save themselves.

Adjourned to 18.09.2015.

Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to file his affidavit stating therein the detailed facts as to how the vehicle was parked in the police premises inspite of having knowledge that no one is claiming the vehicle and it was not required in any case.

Personal appearance of Commissio