DATED

03.05.2019

PASSED

IN

CRL.RP

NO.131/2018 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU BY WHICH

ORDER THE ORDER DATED 15.10.2018 PASSED IN

CR.NO.47/2018 OF PUTTUR TRAFFIC POLICE ON THE

FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C,

BELTHANGADY CAME TO BE CONFIRMED AND THEREBY

2

DIRECT THE PUTTR TRAFFIC POLICE TO RELEASE THE

VEHICLE BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KA-19-B-905

HAVING ENGINE NO.697240CVZ105471 AND CHASSIS

NO.359241CVZ107843 MANUFACTURED IN THE YEAR

MARCH 2004 OWNED BY THE PETITONER.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR

ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE

FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Charge sheet is filed for the offences punishable

under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC alleging that

due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of the

bike, as a result of which, the rider and the pillion

rider fell on the road and bus belonging to the

petitioner

ran

over

them

due

to

which

they

succumbed to injuries. During the course of the

investigation, the investigating officer seized the bus

belonging to the petitioner, which is alleged to have

run over the deceased.

2.

The petitioner filed an application under

Section 452 of Cr.P.C for releasing the vehicle seized

by the police during the course of investigation. The

said application was rejected on the ground that the

vehicle was not covered with an insurance policy and

3

the same was confirmed by the learned Sessions

Judge in a revision petition filed by the petitioner,

against which the present petition is filed.

3.

Learned

counsel

appearing

for

the

petitioner submits that the proceedings for the

offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of

IPC has abated, in view of the death of accused No.1.

Hence, he submits that in the absence of any charge

sheet filed against the driver of the bus and also in

view of the abatement of the proceedings, the

petitioner is entitled to release of the vehicle.

4.

On the other hand, the learned High Court

Government Pleader does not dispute that the

proceedings initiated for the aforesaid offences stand

abated, in view of the death of the accused.

5.

The trial Court as well as the learned

Sessions Judge dismissed the application on the

ground that the subject vehicle was not covered with

an insurance policy and in view of the prohibition

4

contained in Rule 19(1) of the "Claims Tribunal

Agreed Procedure", petitioner was not entitled for

release of the vehicle. Rule 19(1) of the "Claims

Tribunal Agreed Procedure" formulated by the Delhi

High Court specifies that 'No Court shall release a

motor vehicle involved in an accident resulting in

death or bodily injury or damage to property, when

such vehicle is not covered by the policy of insurance

against third party risks, unless and until the

registered owner furnishes sufficient security to the

satisfaction of the Court to pay compensation that

may be awarded in a claim case arising out of such

accident'.

6.

In the present case, the charge sheet was

filed against the rider of the motor vehicle and not

against the petitioner who is the owner of the subject

vehicle. Hence, Rule 19(1) of the "Claims Tribunal

Agreed Procedure" is not applicable to the facts of the

case. The proceedings before the Trial Court having

been concluded, the petitioner who is the owner of

5

the bus is entitled for release of the vehicle, since the

subject vehicle is not required to be produced at the

time of trial.

Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

i.

Criminal petition is allowed.

ii.

The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge

and JMFC, Belthangady is hereby directed to

release the vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-19-

B-905 having Engine No.697D40CVZ105471

and

Chassis

No.359241CVZ107843

to

the

petitioner,

subject

to

the

condition,

the

petitioner

produces

relevant

documents

to

establish his ownership of the subject vehicle.

Sd/-

JUDGE

rv