# Adesh Kumar and another v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2007) 3 ILRA 936
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2007-09-06
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Application No. 20834 of 2007
- **Bench:** Mrs. Poonam Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/adesh-kumar-and-another-v-state-of-u-p-41191
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 51Release
of
Vehicle-Vehicle
having
temporary
registration-involve
in
accident-punishment
of
driver-cannot
come in the way of release of vehicle-for
in definite period-Magistrate ought to
have exercised such power promptlydirection issued for release of vehicle in
favour of owner or insurer within 15
Days.

Held: Para 8

In view of decisions of the Apex Court, I
quash
the
impugned
orders
dated
16.9.2006 and 10.1.2007 passed by the
Judicial Magistrate and the Session
Judge respectively and direct the courts
concerned
to
release
Chassis
No.
426021AUZ200824.
Engine
no.
50A62380439
vide
temporary
registration no. JH-O5 C-49977 in favour
of the applicants either Adesh Kumar or
Tata Motors forthwith within a period of
15 days from the date a certified copy of
this order is produced before him.
Case law relied on:
2003(43) ACC 223
1997(14) ACC 220 (SC)

## Text

936 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
appointed by the Government instead of
the Court itself granting higher pay.)

20. Same view was reiterated by his
Lordship in Canteen Mazdoor Sabha v.
Metallurgical Engineering Consultants
(I) Ltd. and others, JT 2007 (10) SC 292
and recently, in Union of India and
others v. Hiranmoy Sen and others (Civil
Appeal No.7232 of 2003) decided on
12.10.2007.

21. In view of the aforesaid
exposition of law and considering the
facts that the qualification, nature of work
etc. of the Lab Assistant (Ayurved) and
Lab Assistant (Rural) both cannot be said
to be identical in any manner, in our view,
the petitioner cannot invoke the above
principle being situated differently. We,
therefore, do not find any factual or legal
error in the judgment of the Hon'ble
Single Judge impugned in this appeal
warranting interference.

22. The appeal is devoid of merit
and is hereby dismissed. No order as to
costs.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.09.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. POONAM SRIVASTAVA, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No. 20834 of
2007

Adesh Kumar and another
...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P.

...Opposite party

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Prabha Shankar Pandey

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 51Release
of
Vehicle-Vehicle
having
temporary
registration-involve
in
accident-punishment
of
driver-cannot
come in the way of release of vehicle-for
in definite period-Magistrate ought to
have exercised such power promptlydirection issued for release of vehicle in
favour of owner or insurer within 15
Days.

Held: Para 8

In view of decisions of the Apex Court, I
quash
the
impugned
orders
dated
16.9.2006 and 10.1.2007 passed by the
Judicial Magistrate and the Session
Judge respectively and direct the courts
concerned
to
release
Chassis
No.
426021AUZ200824.
Engine
no.
50A62380439
vide
temporary
registration no. JH-O5 C-49977 in favour
of the applicants either Adesh Kumar or
Tata Motors forthwith within a period of
15 days from the date a certified copy of
this order is produced before him.
Case law relied on:
2003(43) ACC 223
1997(14) ACC 220 (SC)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Poonam Srivastav, J.)

1. Heard Sri Prabha Shanker
Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants
and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The order dated 16.9.2006 passed
by the Judicial Magistrate, Bhoganipur,
Kanpur Dehat in case no. 13 of 2005 is
impugned ill the instant application,
whereby an application for release of
Chassis No. 426021 AUZ200824, Engine
No.
50A62380439
vide
temporary
registration no. JH-05 C-4977 (hereinafter
referred as the vehicle in question) has
been rejected. The order rejecting release
3 All] Adesh Kumar and another V. State of U.P.
937
application was challenged in criminal
revision no. 151 of 2006, which was
dismissed vide order dated 10.1.2007.
This order is also impugned in the instant
application.

3. Temporary registration form
issued from Jharkhand on 19.7.2006 is
annexed as annexure no. 1 to the affidavit
filed in support of the application,
wherein Chassis and Engine numbers are
clearly shown, which was being taken
from Jharkhand to Jaipur to its purchaser.
The vehicle in question met with an
accident
en-route
to
Jaipur
and
consequent thereon First Information
Report was registered at case crime no. 97
of 2005 under Sections 279/304-A I.P.C.
P.S. Moosanagar, District Kanpur Dehat.

4. Driver of the vehicle Adesh
Kumar, applicant no. 1 was convicted
under Section 279 I.P.C. awarding fine of
Rs.l,000/- and under Section 304-A I.P.C.
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of one month. In the event of nondeposit of fine, additional sentence was of
one month. The application for release
was moved by Driver Adesh Kumar
himself, which was rejected on the ground
that driver is not the registered owner of
the vehicle in question, therefore, release
application
could
not
be
allowed.
Revision has also been dismissed on the
same ground. The instant application has
been moved on behalf of driver Adesh
Kumar as well as Tata Motors, who is
manufacturer of Chassis of the truck,
which is sold to the different, dealers.

5. On perusal of annexure no.5, it
transpires that trade tax was paid and
there was no illegality whatsoever save
for the unfortunate accident. The vehicle
is lying in the custody of the police,
despite criminal case has come to an end
and driver has also served out his
sentence.

6. Counsel for the applicants has
placed reliance on decision of the Apex
Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal
Desai Vs. State of Gujrat 2003 (43) ACC
page 223, wherein the Apex Court has
clearly stated that the vehicle can be
released in favour of the owner or
insurance company or a third person, if he
is found to be entitled to take delivery.
The Apex Court further directed that
power under section 451 Cr.P.C should be
exercised promptly expeditiously and
articles seized should not be kept for a
long time at the police station, in any case
for not more than 15 days or one month.

7. In the instant case, courts have
completely overlooked that the vehicle in
question was being manufacture by Tata
Motors and sold to different dealers.
Chassis of trucks transported to the
different States. It is always entrusted to
the respective driver. In the instant case,
admittedly, accident had taken place at
the hands of the driver Adesh Kumar. He
was prosecuted and convicted. The
present application is moved at his
instance as well as by the actual
manufacturer i.e. Tata Motors. The Apex
Court in the case of Sunderbai (supra) as
well as Smt. Basavva Kom Dyamangouda
Patil Vs. State of Mysore and another
1997 (14) ACC 220 (SC), was of the view
that where the property which has been
the subject matter of an offence is seized
by the police, ought not be retained in the
custody of the court or of the police for
any time longer than what is absolutely
necessary as seizure amounts to clear
entrustment
of
the
property
to
a
government servant, the idea behind
938 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
Section 451/457 Cr.P.C. is that property
should be restored to the original owner
after necessity to retain it ceases.

8. In view of decisions of the Apex
Court, I quash the impugned orders dated
16.9.2006 and 10.1.2007 passed by the
Judicial Magistrate and the Session Judge
respectively
and
direct
the
courts
concerned
to
release
Chassis
No.
426021AUZ200824.
Engine
no.
50A62380439 vide temporary registration
no. JH-O5 C-49977 in favour of the
applicants either Adesh Kumar or Tata
Motors forthwith within a period of 15
days from the date a certified copy of this
order is produced before him.

9. With the aforesaid direction, the
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
finally disposed of.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.08.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAVINDRA SINGH, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No. 2259 of
2007

Dushyant Thakor and others ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. and another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri. Vinay Saran

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri.Shishir Prakash
Sri. Navin sinha
Mrs. Tulika Prakash
Sri. Vipin Sinha
AGA

Code of Criminal Procedure Code Section
482-quashing of criminal proceedingoffence under 498 A, 323, 504, 506 IPCboth parties on the basis of compromise
decided
to
live
separately-the
wife
appeared and accepted to receive Rs.7
Lacs in furtherance of compromise-fate
of pending criminal proceeding predecided-held-continuance
of
such
proceeding would amount to abuse of
process-hence quashed.

Held: Para 6

In
such
circumstances
the
fate
of
proceedings pending in the Court of the
learned C.J.M. Concerned is pre decided
i.e. the acquittal of the accused because
the
witness
shall
not
support
the
prosecution
story
on
account
of
compromise. It shall be abuse cf the
process of the court if the proceedings
are not quashed. In view of the decision
of Apex Court in case of B.S. Joshi and
others Vs. State of Haryana and another
AIR 2003 SC 1386, in such matrimonial
case if the parties have entered into a
compromise the proceedings may be
quashed.
Case law discussed:
AIR 2003 SC 1386

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ravindra Singh, J.)

1. This application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the
applicants Dushyant Thakor, Smt. Kusum
Thakor, Vaishaii Mittar and Mandir
Mittar with a prayer to quash the
proceedings of Criminal Case No. 18236
of 2006 under Sections 498A, 323, 504,
506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act
pending in the court of learned C.J.M.,
Allahabad.

2. The facts in brief of this case are
that the FIR of this case has been lodged
by Neeraj Chug against the applicants at
P.S. Civil Lines, District Allahabad in