Suman Vs. State of Punjab

Suman vs State of Punjab

Type Court Judgment Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Jan 21, 2014

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1122060

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1122060
Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On: Jan 21, 2014
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Suman

Respondent

State of Punjab

Excerpt

.....: hon’ble mr.justice surinder gupta **** present : mr.deepak aggarwal, advocate for the petitioner. mr.varun sharma, aag, punjab. **** surinder gupta, j. (oral) the car of the petitioner was taken in custody by the police in case bearing fir no.786 dated 29.10.2009 registered for offences under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-b ipc at police station kotwali bathinda, district bathinda. in fact, the case was registered against accused naresh kumar mittal and he was arrested while traveling in the car of the petitioner. the police had also taken the car in possession. the petitioner, who has no concern with the case and being owner of the car, has sought permission to sell it. however, permission was declined on the ground that the car is case property and the investigation is going on. the car was taken into possession on 31.10.2009. the car belong to the petitioner, who is its registered owner. it is nowhere the crl. misc. no.m-931 of2014-2- allegation of the prosecution that the car was used in any crime. merely because the accused, who were arrested, were traveling in the car is no ground to decline the permission to the petitioner to dispose of his old model car. the order has been passed by the learned chief judicial magistrate, bathinda, declining the application of the petitioner, without application of mind and is not sustainable. as such the same is quashed. the petitioner is allowed to sell the car i.e.maruti suzuki dzire vdi bearing registration no.pb22a0038and shall submit intimation to this effect to the court of chief judicial magistrate, bathinda and abide by further direction in that regard, if any issued by the chief judicial magistrate, bathinda. 21st january, 2014 (surinder gupta) gupta) ‘raj’ judge raj kumar 2014.01.22 17:06 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRL.

MISC.

No.M-931 OF 2014 DATE OF DECISION : 21st JANUARY, 2014 Suman ….

Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ….

Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA **** Present : Mr.Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Varun Sharma, AAG, Punjab.

**** SURINDER GUPTA, J.

(ORAL) The car of the petitioner was taken in custody by the police in case bearing FIR No.786 dated 29.10.2009 registered for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Kotwali Bathinda, District Bathinda.

In fact, the case was registered against accused Naresh Kumar Mittal and he was arrested while traveling in the car of the petitioner.

The police had also taken the car in possession.

The petitioner, who has no concern with the case and being owner of the car, has sought permission to sell it.

However, permission was declined on the ground that the car is case property and the investigation is going on.

The car was taken into possession on 31.10.2009.

The car belong to the petitioner, who is its registered owner.

It is nowhere the CRL.

MISC.

NO.M-931 OF2014-2- allegation of the prosecution that the car was used in any crime.

Merely because the accused, who were arrested, were traveling in the car is no ground to decline the permission to the petitioner to dispose of his old model car.

The order has been passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda, declining the application of the petitioner, without application of mind and is not sustainable.

As such the same is quashed.

The petitioner is allowed to sell the car i.e.Maruti Suzuki Dzire VDI bearing Registration No.PB22A0038and shall submit intimation to this effect to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda and abide by further direction in that regard, if any issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda.

21st JANUARY, 2014 (SURINDER GUPTA) GUPTA) ‘raj’ JUDGE Raj Kumar 2014.01.22 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Same Court & Year Punjab and Haryana · 2014 Same Parties Suman vs State of Punjab Same Subject Land Acquisition