The court mandated proper verification of property ownership before attachment, quashing proceedings against the accused due to inadequate evidence linking them to the crime.

JUDGMENT :

Vinod Diwakar, J.

1. Heard Shri R.P. Rajan, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Vibhav Anand, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, and perused the record.

2. Shri Mohit Agarwal, Commissioner of Police, Varanasi, appeared virtually through video conferencing.

3. The present application has been preferred with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 1.4.2024, passed in Special Session Trial No.1203 of 2021, arising out of Case Crime No. 212 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 368 I.P.C. read with section 16/17 of POCSO Act, registered at P.S. Chaubepur, District-Varanasi, pending trial in the court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.3, Varanasi, whereby the applicant’s application for release of the goods was rejected.

4. After hearing learned counsel for the applicant, on examining the seizure memo of goods attached and perusal of the impugned order, this Court vide order dated 11.11.2024 directed the Commissioner of Police, Varanasi, to appear virtually through video conferencing and file a personal affidavit containing the day-to-day steps taken by the police to recover Awadhesh Maurya and Jyoti Yadav, who had gone missing on 10.05.2021. The relevant portion of the aforesaid order has been extracted below:

“3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the real brother of Awadhesh Maurya, who was working as driver in the informant's firm. In the First Information Report, it is alleged that the brother of the applicant has abducted minor daughter of the complainant, and the applicant and two-three unknown persons assisted him in abduction. The younger brother of the applicant is also made a co-accused in the instant case, who is still missing along with the daughter of the complainant prior to the date of registration of FIR. Learned counsel further submits that no evidence to support the bald allegation surfaced during the investigation qua applicant. At belated stage of investigation with ulterior motives, the applicant's name has been roped in the instant case at behest of mother of the victim along with other co-accused.

4. The main accused Awadhesh Maurya- who is stated to have eloped the complainant's daughter- could not be traced by the police, and therefore, proceedings u/s 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. have been initiated, consequently, the police attached the applicant's family property, earned by the father-accused. Subsequently, the father of the applicant moved an application for release of the goods, which was partly allowed by court, and vide order dated 14.02.2022 and a loader (tempo) bearing A7L1144062 was released in favour of father of applicant. After that the applicant moved an application for release of his goods, but due to certain error, the application was not pressed, and consequently dismissed. The applicant again moved another application for release of the seized household articles, which was rejected by the trial court vide impugned order 01.04.2024.

5. On perusal of the impugned order, it is nowhere mentioned that the attached property was purchased from the earning of the co- accused Awadhesh Maurya, neither any receipt regarding purchase of the seized goods is on record. The trial court has erroneously failed to consider the fact that the applicant and his father (co-accused) are regularly joining the court proceedings, and therefore, the property (household goods) cannot be attached without satisfying itself that the seized property is earned by the absconder, and there is no proof on record to this effect. Therefore, trial court is directed to immediately after receipt a copy of this order release the entire goods seized vide seizure memo 25.12.2021 and shall ensure that the goods are in the same condition as it were at the time of seizure. The compliance report shall be forwarded to this Court on or before the next date of hearing.

6. During the course of arguments, the applica