Order on Board

11/11/2022

1) Heard on admission.

2) Admit.

3) With the consent of the parties, the case is heard finally.

4) This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 01.07.2022 passed by the Sessions Judge, Mahasamund (C.G.) in Criminal Revision No.H-18 of 2022, whereby revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

5) Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this petition, are that, Tractor bearing No. CG-06/GS/6514 (henceforth “offending vehicle”) owned by petitioner, met with an accident on 04.06.2022. Crime was registered in Police Station, Tumgaon bearing Crime No.140/2022 for offence punishable under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and offending vehicle was seized.

6) Petitioner filed an application for release of offending vehicle before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahasamund (C.G.), which came to be allowed on 17.06.2022. Learned Magistrate, while allowing the application has made a pre-condition of furnishing a bank security of Rs.5,00,000/- in cash or to deposit an equivalent amount towards bank security in the name of concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and also submits a Supurdnama of Rs.50,000/- along with certain other conditions, ordered for granting release of offending vehicle.

7) The order of Chief Judicial Magistrate was put to challenge by the petitioner in a revision petition before the Sessions Judge, Mahasamund (C.G.) in Criminal Revision No.H-18 of 2022, wherein the revisional Court while considering the provisions under Rule 240-A of Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 (henceforth “ Rules of 1994”), dismissed the revision petition.

8) Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Courts below have committed grave error of law. He further submits that in Claim Case No. H-104/2021 between the petitioner and legal representatives of deceased Heman Lal Yadav, a compromise in National Lok Adalat was affected and award was passed on 13.08.2022 to provide damages/ compensation amounting to Rs.3,50,000/- and the amount was already been obtained by legal representatives of deceased Heman Lal Yadav, and therefore, there is no necessity to furnish security in the light of Rule 240-A of Rules of 1994 for paying compensation arising out of claim case, since the same was already been paid. It is further contended that condition for release of vehicle was harsh and beyond the capacity of petitioner. It is submitted by him that when compensation amount has already been paid to the petitioner as per compromise, then ends of justice would be served if sufficient surety/personal bond was taken instead of cash / cheque / bank security amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- for release of vehicle on Supurdnama.

9) Per contra, Mr. Anil Tripathi, learned Penal Lawyer representing the State submits that on the date of accident, offending vehicle was not insured and learned Courts below have taken into account the provisions of Section 240-A of the Rules of 1994 and have made pre-condition of furnishing bank security/cash/cheque of Rs.5,00,000/-, the impugned order does not call for any interference.

10) I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents available in the petition.

11) Before adverting to the submission made by learned counsel for the parties, it is expedient to examine Rule 240-A of the Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994, which is extracted below :

“240-A. Prohibition on release of motor vehicle causing accident-(1) No court shall release a motor vehicle causing an accident resulting in death or bodily injury or damage to property, if such vehicle is not covered by a policy of insurance against third party risks or if the registered owner fails to furnish copy of such insurance policy despite demand by investigating police officer, unless and until the registered owner furnishes sufficient security to the satisfaction of