IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA th ON THE 17 OF JULY, 2023 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 14292 of 2022 BETWEEN:-

SUMAN BAI W/O LAKHAN SUTAR, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE VILLAGE SATAJANA, TEHSIL SANAWAD (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPLICANT ( BY SHRI HARSHVARDHAN PATHAK - ADVOCATE)

AND THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION

1. HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH P.S. SANAWAD (MADHYA PRADESH)

MAHESH S/O POONAMCHAND SURAGE, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT

2.

COLONY, SANAWAD, DISTRICT KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS ( BYSHRI KAPIL MAHANT PL)

_____________________________________________________________________

This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

Petitioner has filed present petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 02/08/2021 passed by the Special Judge under the SC & ST ( Prevention of Atrocities Act( 1989 in MJCR no. 173/2021 in Crime no. 437/2021 registered at Police Station – Sanawad, District-Khargone, whereby the application filed by the petitioner udner section 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C for Supurdagi of seized Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMOL tractor bearing registration no. MP-10-AB- 8712 along with trolley has been rejected.

2/ Brief facts of the case are that as per the allegation leveled against the petitioner, she was illegally transporting sand without obtaining valid licence, due to which, the tractor bearing registration no. MP-10-AB- 8712 along with trolley and the sand have been seized by police. When Patwari Mahesh Surage tried to intervene the said tractor, at that time, co-accused Lakhanlal abused in filthy language and caused injury by using spade and also obstructed him in performing his official duty. Accordingly, offence under section 353, 332, 294,323, 506/34, 379 of IPC and sections 3(2)(v-a),3(1)(da) and 3(1)(dha) of SC & ST ( Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been registered against present petitioner.

3/ The petitioner filed an application under section 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C before the trial Court for Supurdagi of the seized tractor and trolley, which was dismissed by the trial Court vide impugned order dated 02/08/2021 by holding that the petitioner has not produced registration certificate and insurance policy regarding the seized tractor and trolley and the seized vehicle was involved in illegal transportation of the sand. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has preferred this petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C before this Court. 4/ Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the registered owner of the seized tractor and trolley. There is no dispute regarding ownership of the seized vehicle although the seized trolley is not registered with RTO. The impugned order passed by the trial Court is bad in law, hence the impugned order be quashed and the seized tractor and trolley be handed over to the petitioner on Supurdagi till final disposal of the case.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMOL

5/ Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the petition by submitting that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court.

6/ Heard both the parties at length and perused the record also.

7/ From perusal of the record and the case diary, it appears that the petitioner Suman Bai is the registered owner of the seized tractor bearing registration no. MP-10-AB- 8712, but she has not filed any relevant document regarding registration certificate and insurance policy of the seized trolley, therefore, the impugned order passed by the trial Court regarding seized trolley appears to be just and proper and the petitioner is not entitled to get Supurdagi of the seized trolley.

8/ So far as the seized tractor is concerned, the petitioner is the registered owner of the seized tractor. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbai Ambalal Desai V. State of Gujarat