S. No.92 Suppl.1 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH , AT SRINAGAR CRM(M) No.252/2025 CrlM No.587/2025 Amina Altaf …..Petitioner(s)

Through: Mr.Tufail Qadiri, Advocate.

V/s UT of Jammu & Kashmir and Ors … ..Respondent(s)

Through : None CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER

16 05.2025

1. The petitioner has challenged order dated 28.04.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar, whereby scrapped vehicle bearing No. DLiCG-5172 has been directed to be released in favour of respondent No.2.

2. Heard and considered.

3. It appears that on the basis of a complaint filed by the petitioner, FIR No.26 of 2023 under Section 441 IPC came to be registered by Police Station M.R.Gunj Srinagar. In the said complaint it was alleged that respondent No.2/accused is unnecessarily causing interference in the construction which the petitioner is raising on the land measuring 27 marlas situated at Bund of Kate kul in Nawab Bazar Srinagar. It was further alleged that respondent No.2 has parked a scrapped vehicle infront of the gate of the said property which has caused hurdles in ingress and egress of the petitioner to the said property and when respondent No.2 was asked to remove the said scrapped vehicle, he refused to do so. In short, the allegations leveled by the petitioner against respondent No.2 in the said FIR are, that the said respondent has trespassed into her property and has blocked ingress and egress to the suit property by parking his scrapped vehicle over there.

4. It seems that after investigation of the case challan was laid before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar and during the trial of the case applications came to be filed by the Police as well as by the petitioner herein for removal of the scrapped vehicle. It also appears that even respondent No.2 filed his objections to these applications and prayed before the Court that the said scrapped vehicle may be released in his favour. The learned trial Magistrate vide order dated 03.03.2025 declined to release the scrapped vehicle in favour of respondent No.2 but directed SHO Police Station M.R.Gunj to remove the said vehicle from the spot.

5. The aforesaid order came to be challenged by respondent No.2 by way of revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar, who vide impugned order dated CRM(M) No. 252/2025 2 | Page

28.04.2025 allowed the revision petition and directed SHO Police Station M.R.Gunj to release the vehicle in question in favour of respondent No.2 on superadnama with certain conditions.

6. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the vehicle in question was never seized by the Police, as such, there was no occasion for the revisional Court to pass impugned order by invoking powers under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. It has been further submitted that order dated 03.03.2025 was executed by the Police on spot, as such revision petition itself had been rendered infructuous. It has been contended that the order impugned passed by the learned revisional court would result in causing continuous obstruction and nuisance to the petitioner.

7. So far as the ownership of the vehicle in question is concerned, the same is not in dispute. In the FIR itself it has been claimed by the petitioner that the vehicle in question was parked on spot by respondent No.2/accused with a view to create obstruction to the ingress and egress to the property of the petitioner. Once it is admitted by the petitioner that the vehicle in question does not belong to her and on the contrary it belongs to respondent No.2 she cannot have any grievance CRM(M) No. 252/2025 3 | Page with regard to release of said vehicle in favour of respondent No.2.

8. The contention of the petitioner that the vehicle was never seized by the Police and as such could not have been released by the Court in favour of respondent No.2 by exercising powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C, is also without any substance. It has to be borne in mind that