Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Deepak Gupta, J.
M/s Magma Fincorp Ltd - Petitioner - Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and Another - Respondents - Respondent
CRM-M-8233 of 2019 (O&M)
Decided On : 25-09-2023
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Quashing of orders - Sections 279/337 of the IPC - Section 451 of the Cr. P. C. - Canara Bank v. State of Punjab - Petitioner's application for permission to sell impounded vehicle - Court's decision to set aside impugned orders and grant permission to sell the vehicle
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash orders dismissing the application for permission to sell a vehicle impounded in a case arising from an accident under Sections 279/337 of the IPC. The petitioner, as the financer, claimed entitlement to sell the vehicle to recover the balance amount from the sale proceeds.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the impugned orders were illegal and erroneous as the petitioner, as the financer, was entitled to dispose of the vehicle to recover the balance amount from the sale proceeds. The Court referred to a similar case and observed that the interest of justice demanded permission to sell the vehicle, subject to certain terms and conditions.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner, as the financer of the impounded vehicle, should be granted permission to sell the vehicle to recover the balance amount from the sale proceeds.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on Section 451 of the Cr. P. C. and the precedent set in Canara Bank v. State of Punjab to establish that the interest of justice demanded permission to sell the impounded vehicle, despite it being case property, to allow the petitioner to recover the loan advanced and reduce the civil liability of the respondent.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the impugned orders and granted permission to the petitioner to sell the impounded vehicle, subject to specific terms and conditions to protect the interests of all parties involved.
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
By way of this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., petitioner prays for quashing order dated 26.09.2017 (Annexure P-1) as well as order dated 30.11.2018 (Annexure P-2), both passed by learned SDJM, Narwana, whereby application of the petitioner seeking permission to sell vehicle bearing registration No.HR-56B-5432, earlier released on superdari in favour of the petitioner, was dismissed in a case arising out of FIR No.139 dated 03.06.2017 registered at Police Station City Narwana, District Jind under Sections 279/337 of the IPC.
2. According to petitioner, it had financed the Car bearing registration No.HR-56B-5432 in favour of respondent No.2 Mohit. Hire purchase agreement and other necessary documents were executed. The said vehicle met with an accident, due to which FIR No.139 dated 03.06.2017 was registered at Police Station City Narwana, District Jind under Sections 279, 337 of the IPC (Annexure P-5). During investigation, the vehicle was impounded by the police. Petitioner being the financer of the vehicle applied for superdari of the vehicle. That application was allowed vide order dated 16.08.2017 (Annexure P-6). One of the conditions for release the vehicle on superdari in favour of the petitioner was that it shall not be disposed of till final disposal of the case and that petitioner shall produce the same as and when required by the police.
3. Thereafter, petitioner moved an application (Annexure P-1) seeking permission to sell the vehicle, as it was likely to become junk with the passage of time and that on selling the vehicle, the petitioner- bank will be able to recover a part of the loan advanced. However, the application was dismissed on 26.09.2017 (Annexure P-1) and then the fresh application (Annexure P-8) for the same purpose was dismissed vide order dated 30.11.2018 (Annexure P-2).
4. It is contended by learned counsel that impugned orders are illegal and erroneous, as learned Court below failed to notice that respondent No.2 being registered owner defaulted in making payment of installments and as per the agreement of hire purchase, petitioner is entitled to dispose of the vehicle to recover the balance amount from the sale proceeds of the vehicle. Learned counsel contends that impugned order is likely to result in reducing the vehicle in question as a junk, which will cause loss to the petitioner as well as respondent No.2. With these submissions prayer is made for setting aside the impugned orders.
5. Learned State counsel opposed the petition by submitting that one of the conditions laid down in the order dated 26.09.20174 (Annexure P-1), whereby the vehicle was released, is that the petitioner will not dispose of the vehicle. It is contended that in case the vehicle is allowed to be sold, the same despite being a case property, will not be produced in the Court during trial.
6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. Section 451 of the Cr. P. C. reads as under: --
“Section 451, Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases,-- When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of.”
8. A similar question as involved in the present case, arose before this Court in Canara Bank v. State of Punjab, (P&H): Law Finder Doc Id # 91198, wherein a tractor financed by the Canara Bank, was impounded during investigation in a criminal case and that tractor after being seized by the police, was released on superdari to the bank subject to the undertaking that the bank will not alter its identification marks and would not dispose of the same without prior permission
AI
The interest of justice may demand permission to sell impounded property, subject to certain terms and conditions, to allow recovery of loans and reduce civil liabilities.
The court established that registered owners can reclaim vehicles used in crimes under specific conditions to prevent deterioration.
A vehicle used in an NDPS Act offence can be released on superdari even if the applicant is not the registered owner, provided effective ownership is established.
The court established that an acquitted individual has the right to reclaim their property, emphasizing the importance of timely applications under Section 452 of the CrPC.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
