Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 27587
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR, J
Sunita – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
MCRC 53763/2023
Abhishek Rathore,Advocate General
The court held that property seized during an investigation can be returned to the owner if it does not prejudice the ongoing case.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 451 and 457 - Petition for Supurdagi - The petitioner sought the return of her vehicle and seized articles, asserting ownership, while the State opposed, citing potential procurement through illicit means - The court found no prejudice in returning the vehicle pending case resolution - The vehicle was ordered to be released upon surety. (Paras 2-6)
(B) Seizure of property - The court emphasized the need for a balanced approach in granting Supurdagi, ensuring that the rights of the petitioner are considered without compromising the investigation. (Paras 4-6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a teacher, sought the return of her Honda scooty and jewelry seized during an investigation against her husband, who faced allegations under the N.D.P.S. Act. The State contended that the items might be linked to drug money.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that returning the Honda scooty would not cause prejudice and allowed its release upon surety.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the petitioner could reclaim her vehicle and articles seized during the investigation without compromising the ongoing case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the return of property should not cause prejudice to the investigation, allowing the vehicle's return pending final case resolution.
Result: Petition disposed of, vehicle ordered to be released.
Heard.
2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 11.08.2023 passed by the Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, Neemuch whereby the petitioner's application filed under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. for supurdagi of her vehicle and articles seized during the investigation has been rejected.
3. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the main allegations are against the petitioner's husband Manish Tiwari, whereas the petitioner is a teacher by profession and also takes private tuition. It is submitted that the vehicle Honda scooty bearing registration No.MP44MQ6338 has been seized, which is in the name of present petitioner only. Thus, its Supurdagi may be granted to the petitioner. It is also submitted that the ornaments which are worn by the petitioner, have also been seized, which may also be directed to be returned to the petitioner.
4. Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and it is apprehended that the aforesaid articles may have been procured by the petitioner through the drug money. Thus, it is submitted that no case for interference is made out.
5. Having considered rival submissions, perusal of the documents filed on record, including the seizure memo, it is found that amongst other articles, some jewellery and a Honda scooty bearing registration No.MP44MQ6338 have been seized, which are as under:-
- "1. चांदी का कं दोरा, िटके , पायजब, अंगुिठ, वजनी डेढ िकलो ---------------------------------- 14. एक होण्डा मो.सा. एमपी 44 एमएस 8243, एक स्कु टी एक् टीवा एमपी 44 एकक् यु (एम क् यु) 6338 रखी िमली -----------------------------------"
6. This Court is of the considered opinion that no prejudice would be caused if the aforesaid article Nos.1 and 14 (Honda Activa Scooter only) may be allowed to be given back to the petitioner till the final disposal of the case.
Thus, it is directed that the vehicle be released subject to the adequate surety furnished by the petitioner before the Competent Officer.
7. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.
