IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that registered owners can reclaim vehicles used in crimes under specific conditions to prevent deterioration.

JUDGMENT :

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

The Prayer in this petition under Section 482 Cr.PC is for quashing of the order dated 21.07.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak vide which the application of the petitioner for releasing the vehicle on superdari was dismissed in case bearing FIR No.323 dated 25.07.2022 under Section 18(C) NDPS Act P.S. Meham, Rohtak, Haryana.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the aforementioned FIR came to be registered against Vinay Kumar (brother of the petitioner), Neeraj and Ashok with the allegations that they had been found travelling in a car bearing registration number HR-20AK-0539 make TATA Tiago from which 1Kg 480 Grams of Opium had been recovered. The petitioner is the registered owner of the aforesaid vehicle.

3. The petitioner had filed an application for superdari of the aforesaid vehicle before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak. However, the said application came to be dismissed vide order dated 21.07.2022 (Annexure P-3).

4. The aforesaid order is impugned in the present petition.

5. The Counsel for the petitioner contends that reasoning adopted by the Trial Court for rejecting the application for superdari was not sustainable. Merely because the recovery had been effected from the said vehicle would not be a reason enough to deny the claim of the petitioner, she being the registered owner. In fact, there was every likelihood that the vehicle would be damaged beyond repair as it was parked in open space and was subjected to the vagaries of the weather. He therefore contends that the vehicle in question may be released to the petitioner on superdari on an appropriate undertaking being furnished by her.

6. The Counsel for the State on the other hand has filed a reply by way of an affidavit of Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DSP, Meham, District Rohtak in the court today, which is taken on record. While referring to the said reply he contends that the vehicle in question had been used in the trafficking of narcotics. Therefore, it was not liable to be released to the petitioner on superdari even though she was the registered owner of the vehicle.

7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length.

8. In Sunder Bhai Ambala Desai's case (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

“15. Learned senior counsel Mr. Dholakia, appearing for the State of Gujarat further submitted that at present in the police station premises, number of vehicles are kept unattended and vehicles become junk day by day. It is his contention that appropriate directions should be given to the Magistrates who are dealing with such questions to hand over such vehicles to its owner or to the person from whom the said vehicles are seized by taking appropriate bond and the guarantee for the return of the said vehicles if required by the Court at any point of time.

16. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that this question of handing over vehicles to the person from whom it is seized or to its true owner is always a matter of litigation and a lot of arguments are advanced by the concerned persons.

17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles.

18. In case where the vehicle is not claimed by the accused, owner, or the insurance company or by third person, then such vehicle may be ordered to be auctioned by the Court. If the said vehicle is insured with the insurance company then insurance company be informed by the Court to take possession of the vehicle which is not claimed by the owner or a third person. If Insurance company fails to take possession the vehicles may be sold as per the direction of the Court. The Court would pass s