(1) >^>! IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF C.G. AT BILASPUR CR.M.P. N0. f^ Y>^ OF 2010 APPLICANT ^f--:'^ ^•:"\^a-.--i" -^:-"" ..,- ..-. ...••-•"..,-, .•?V^J;1-'''" f:^"^^'^^"^ t •*' .A.A'" .^•'^ .-.'.tfA--"' V 1^' €^ VERSUS NON-APPLICANT Smt. Kanta Devi, W/o Late Shri Suresh Kumar, aged about 38 years, Owner of Truck No. H.R.-56-J-3292, through Power of Attorney Raniesh Kumar, S/o Late Gariya Singh, aged about 46 years, R/o Village-Bibipur, Tahsil & District-Jind (Hariyana) State of Chhattisgarh, through the Police Station Sankara, District-Mahasamund (C.G.) APPL^ATWK UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973 '••SsSsseT.saiiSs.'^^-ssi OF AT SB : HOS'i'BLiS MR. JG'STICE PRITISKER DIWAKE: CR.M.P. 90. APPLICAS' RE-SPOSDENTiS versus Smt. Kaata Devi State 01 Chhartisgai-h Shri Prateek Shanna. counsel for tlie petiTioner. Shri Vaibhav Goverdhas., P. L. &r the State. APPLICATIOH 483 OF CR.P.C. GRDER (30.06.2010; tn fhe present petition, tlie petitioner impugns uie order dated 28.4.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Fii-st Ciass, Piflioi-a, District Maliasaiaund by whicn her a.pplication urider Sectioa .451/457 for interiiEi custod;.- of &e vehic.ie has beeu rejected. 2. Contention of Shri Shsu-m.a, counsel for the petitioriCr is .•that tlie trial has not been concluded tili date and therefore the •vehicle in. questioii which is oae of fbe soiirce of her incocis be released iu her favoui-. 3. On fhe other hand. Sta.te counsel Las floiiited out that earlier fhe husband of fhe petitioner ns-iacly Siiresh Kuraar had fUed fhe uetition before this Courfc for releasiiig the vehicle on Supurdnama and the ssid petitioa was dismissed on derits vide'order dated 3.12.2008 passed m Cr.M.P. No. 458/2008 m the foUow~uig raaiuier: According to the order impug-aed aiid the dociiinents ffled on behalf of the petitioriers, the / !1 ^sg^g ^Sass s^SS^S^S^^S i^ netitioners are fhe. owners of tlie vehicles m. question namely HR-56/J-3292 &, HR-56/J-8992. But accordiag t.o tae case of the prosecutioii, tl'ie petitioners were using the veliicles after changing tlie registration nuia'bers for which feev are not authorized aiid by chariging the registration num'bers of the vehicles, fhey have teianered ivith flie registration nuinbers and forged the articles, therefore, the petitioners are aot entifled for the custody offlie forged siid tampered articles." 4. !n view of the above fuiduig given bv this Court, I ain of tiie considered ODUiion that the present petition caanot be entertained aad fhe saiae is accordiiigly dissiissed. Howerer, the trial' Court is again. directed to conclude tlie trial as expeditic.usly as possible. Sd//- Pritinker Diwaker / i Judge