Present: - Mr. John Kumar Advocate Vs. State of HaryanA. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1059511
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnMar-01-2013
AppellantPresent: - Mr. John Kumar Advocate
RespondentState of HaryanA.
Excerpt:
crl.misc.not m-2327 of 2013 (o&m) 1 in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh. crl.misc.not m-2327 of 2013 (o&m) date of decision:- 21.02.2013 neeraj alias babloo petitioner. versus state of haryana. respondent. coram : hon’ble mr.justice naresh kumar sanghi. present: - mr.john kumar, advocate, for the petitioner. mr.anupam sharma, aag, haryana. naresh kumar sanghi,j. prayer in the present petition filed under section 482, cr.p.c.is for quashing the order dated 29.09.2012 passed by learned chief judicial magistrate, panchkula, whereby the application for releasing the vehicle on supurdari in his favour, was dismissed. the challenge has also been made to the order dated 10.12.2012 passed by learned additional sessions judge, panchkula, whereby the revision filed by the petitioner impugning the order dated 29.09.2012 passed by learned chief judicial magistrate, panchkula, was dismissed. brief facts of the case are that fir no.119 dated crl.misc.not m-2327 of 2013 (o&m”08. 06.2009, under sections 201, 379, 411, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-b, ipc was registered at police station, chandi mandir. three persons were arrested and later released on bail. during investigation of the case, approximately 25 vehicles were taken into custody under section 102, cr.p.c.by the police. after investigation, the charge-sheet (report under section 173, cr.p.c) was presented before the learned area judicial magistrate and even the charges were framed against the accused persons. during pendency of the above mentioned case, an application was moved by the petitioner alleging that he was the bonafide purchaser of vehicle not hr-31g-0968 and prayed for release of the said vehicle on supurdari. it was also alleged in the application that the vehicle was parked in the police station and if the same remained unattended then it would be damaged. the said application was dismissed by the learned chief judicial magistrate vide order dated 29.09.2012. even the revision against the said order was also dismissed. learned counsel contends that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration not hr- 31g-0698 and, therefore, he is entitled to get the vehicle released on supurdari during the pendency of the trial. he crl.misc.not m-2327 of 2013 (o&m) 3 further submits that in case the vehicle is not released in that eventuality, the same would be damaged while remained stationary in the open area of the police station. on the other hand, learned counsel for the state submits that the chassis number of the vehicle has been tampered with and the same does not telly with the registration book of the applicant. he further submits that the particulars mentioned in the registration book produced by the petitioner do not match with the particulars available with the registration authority, karnal, therefore, the vehicle can not be released on supurdari in favour of the petitioner at this stage. heard. both the courts below have already perused the facts and specifically came to the conclusion that the particulars described in the registration book produced by the applicant do not match with the particulars contained in the record of the registration authority, karnal. even the chassis number of the vehicle does not match with the number mentioned in the registration book. the report received from the forensic science laboratory shows that the chassis number of the vehicle was tampered with. in view of the glaring facts emerging on the crl.misc.not m-2327 of 2013 (o&m) 4 record, no ground is made out to order for release of vehicle not hr-31g-0968, on supurdari, in favour of the petitioner. as a sequel to the above, the present petition sans merit and is hereby dismissed. (naresh kumar sanghi) judge 21 02.2013 anoop
Judgment:

Crl.Misc.not M-2327 of 2013 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

Crl.Misc.not M-2327 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 21.02.2013 Neeraj alias Babloo Petitioner.

Versus State of Haryana.

Respondent.

CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI.

Present: - Mr.John Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.Anupam Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

NARESH KUMAR SANGHI,J.

Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C.is for quashing the order dated 29.09.2012 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula, whereby the application for releasing the vehicle on supurdari in his favour, was dismissed.

The challenge has also been made to the order dated 10.12.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula, whereby the revision filed by the petitioner impugning the order dated 29.09.2012 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula, was dismissed.

Brief facts of the case are that FIR No.119 dated Crl.Misc.not M-2327 of 2013 (O&M”

08. 06.2009, under Sections 201, 379, 411, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B, IPC was registered at Police Station, Chandi Mandir.

Three persons were arrested and later released on bail.

During investigation of the case, approximately 25 vehicles were taken into custody under Section 102, Cr.P.C.by the police.

After investigation, the charge-sheet (report under Section 173, Cr.P.C) was presented before the learned Area Judicial Magistrate and even the charges were framed against the accused persons.

During pendency of the above mentioned case, an application was moved by the petitioner alleging that he was the bonafide purchaser of vehicle not HR-31G-0968 and prayed for release of the said vehicle on supurdari.

It was also alleged in the application that the vehicle was parked in the police station and if the same remained unattended then it would be damaged.

The said application was dismissed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 29.09.2012.

Even the revision against the said order was also dismissed.

Learned counsel contends that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration not HR- 31G-0698 and, therefore, he is entitled to get the vehicle released on supurdari during the pendency of the trial.

He Crl.Misc.not M-2327 of 2013 (O&M) 3 further submits that in case the vehicle is not released in that eventuality, the same would be damaged while remained stationary in the open area of the police station.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the chassis number of the vehicle has been tampered with and the same does not telly with the registration book of the applicant.

He further submits that the particulars mentioned in the registration book produced by the petitioner do not match with the particulars available with the registration authority, Karnal, therefore, the vehicle can not be released on supurdari in favour of the petitioner at this stage.

Heard.

Both the courts below have already perused the facts and specifically came to the conclusion that the particulars described in the registration book produced by the applicant do not match with the particulars contained in the record of the registration authority, Karnal.

Even the chassis number of the vehicle does not match with the number mentioned in the registration book.

The report received from the Forensic Science Laboratory shows that the chassis number of the vehicle was tampered with.

In view of the glaring facts emerging on the Crl.Misc.not M-2327 of 2013 (O&M) 4 record, no ground is made out to order for release of vehicle not HR-31G-0968, on supurdari, in favour of the petitioner.

As a sequel to the above, the present petition sans merit and is hereby dismissed.

(NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) JUDGE 21 02.2013 Anoop