IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-24295-2025 Decided on : 24.09.2025 Murari Lal . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus State of Haryana and others . . . Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. Jayant Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, AAG, Haryana.

****

SANJAY VASHISTH , J. (Oral)

1. Petitioner – Murari Lal, has filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for setting aside of the order dated 21.12.2022, passed by learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mahendragarh (Annexure P-2), and also the order dated 05.10.2023, passed by learned Deputy Commissioner, Mahendragarh at Narnaul (Annexure P-3), whereby, application for releasing his vehicle bearing registration No. RJ52-GA-0660, Chassis No. MA12N2GHKF1A17606, was dismissed for releasing of the vehicle of the petitioner on superdari.

2. Case of the petitioner is that one FIR No. 0007, dated 17.01.2022, was registered under Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 2015, Sections 13(1) & 13(2) of the Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act, 2015, and under Sections 285, 34, 429 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, against one Tahir, resident of Arudka (Alwar), Rajasthan.

Petitioner being registered owner of the vehicle in question, had entered into an agreement to sell with one Tahir (accused in the FIR) on dated 08.06.2021. In the FIR, there is specific mention that in case Tahir fails to deposit two consecutive installments, then owner or the financer, would be at liberty to confiscate the vehicle and in such eventuality, agreement to sell would stand cancelled. It is after making full and final payment by the petitioner to the financer, finance company issued a letter to the RTO/Insurance to terminate the agreement, removing the hypothecation of the finance company, and thereupon, vehicle was registered in the name of the owner, i.e., petitioner. Criminal case against Tahir is still pending since 2023 for its final adjudication. Vehicle in question was confiscated by the police authorities on 17.01.2022, and same is lying in the police station for the last more than of 03 years and 08 months period.

3. By relying upon the judgment of this Court rendered in (i) Rajesh Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2021(2) PLR 85 : Law Finder Doc Id # 1802898, (ii) Nafe Singh v. Devender Kumar, 2004(1) RCR (Crl.) 987 : Law Finder Doc ID #67395, and (iii) CRM-M-52873 of 2023, titled as, “Khurshid v. State of Haryana”, D.O.D.: 09.09.2024 (appended as Annexure P-9), petitioner’s counsel prays for release of vehicle on superdari to him.

4. In response to the writ petition, one short reply by way of affidavit has been filed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mahendragarh, on behalf of respondent NO.2, and submits that the vehicle was being used for illegal transportation of Gauvansh in contravention of the Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act, 2015 (for brevity, ‘Act of 2015’), and report in this regard was sent by the SHO, Nangal Chaudhary to Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mahendragarh.

It is thereupon, that in compliance to the provision of law, i.e., Section 17(2) of the Act of 2015, vehicle has been confiscated after granting an opportunity to both the sides.

Learned State counsel also defends the order passed by respondent No.3 – Deputy Commissioner, Mahendragarh and submits that the criminal writ petition carries no weightage and is liable to be dismissed.

5. I have heard the respective learned counsel for the parties, impugned orders, and also perused the record along with cited judgments. 6. For reference, Section 17 of the Act of 2015, reads as under:-

“17. (1) Whenever an offence punishable under this Act has been committed, any vehicle used in the commission of such offence shall be liable to be confiscated by a police officer not below the rank of Sub-

Inspector or any person authorized in this behalf by the Government.

(2) Where any vehicle referred to in sub-section (1) is c