W.P(CRL) 854/2011 Page 1 of 8

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

WP(CRL) No.854/2011

Date of Reserve: 07.09.2015

Date of Decision: 17.09.2015

RAJEEV @ RAJ

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr.Vijay Aggarwal, Mr.Chaitali Jain, Mr.

Arjun Taneja and Mr.Mudit Jain, Advocates.

versus

STATE

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr.Raghuvinder Verma, APP.

SI Virendra Singh, Crime Branch, Kotwali,

Delhi.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.

1.

The petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.3.2011 passed

by the learned ACMM (South), Saket Courts, New Delhi in

connection with FIR No.5/2010 (P.S.Crime Branch) whereby the

prayer made on his behalf for release of his vehicle (Mahendra

Scorpio) bearing registration No.WB-02Q 1645 has been refused.

2.

The case of the petitioner is that the registered owner of vehicle

in question namely Meenu Shah has executed a mandate of transfer of

ownership of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner was

not given the vehicle on superdari as it would have amounted to

adjudicating the claim or title over the said property.

2015:DHC:7778

W.P(CRL) 854/2011 Page 2 of 8

3.

It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that the powers

under Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure need

be exercised expeditiously and judiciously which would serve various

purposes namely: the owner of the vehicle would not suffer because of

the same remaining unused or by its misappropriation; the

investigating agency would not be required to keep the article in safe

custody; and if proper panchnama before handing over the possession

of vehicle is prepared, the same could be used in evidence instead of

its production before the Court during the trial.

4.

The facts giving rise to the seizure of the aforesaid vehicle

which is sought to be released in favour of the petitioner, is as follows.

5.

One K.P.Singh lodged an FIR No.5/2010 (P.S.Crime Branch,

Nehru Place) under Sections 406/42/120B IPC against the accused

persons including the petitioner aforesaid alleging that he was cheated

of huge amount of money on the pretext of providing admission to his

son and nephew in BIT Mesra (Ranchi) on Governor’s quota.

Aforesaid K.P.Singh, on false assurance of the admission, parted with

huge amount of money but admission to his son and nephew could not

be secured.

6.

During the course of investigation of the present case in which

the petitioner was an accused, the aforementioned vehicle and other

items were recovered from the possession of the accused persons.

7.

The aforesaid vehicle was stated to have been purchased by the

petitioner on payment of consideration money from one Meenu Shah.

8.

The release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner was

opposed on the ground that it was purchased out of ill-gotten money,

2015:DHC:7778

W.P(CRL) 854/2011 Page 3 of 8

money of which the complainant was fobbed off. In that view of the

matter, it was argued on behalf of the complainant that the vehicle

could not be released even on superdari to the petitioner.

9.

Learned ACMM, vide order dated 14.3.2011, for the reason that

the vehicle has been purchased out of the money which was cheated

from the complainant of FIR No.5/2010, refused to release the vehicle

in favour of the petitioner.

10.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the challenge

to the aforesaid order has been made by way of present writ petition

and not by way of a revision as release or refusal to release of his

vehicle on superdari would only be, an interlocutory order. If the

p