Criminal Miscellaneous No.5815 of 2004 *** In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. *** 1. Jai Prakash Singh @ Rangesh Prasad 2. Suryadeo Singh, Both sons of Sri Shivlal Singh 3. Shivlal Singh son of Late Risali Garain 4. Savitri Devi W/o Sri Shivlal Singh All residents of village- Makhdumpur, P.S. Ekangar Sarai, District- Nalanda ...Petitioners Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Gyanti Devi alleged w/o Jagat Narain Singh @ Dhurandhar Singh 3. Jagat Narain Singh @ Dhurandhar Singh s/o Shiv Lal Garain Residents of village-Makhdumpur, P.S. Ekangar Sarai, District- Nalanda 4. Sri S. N. B. Dhoba, ASI, Ekangar Sarai Police Station, District- Nalanda & 5. Officer-in-charge, Ekangar Sarai Police Station, District- Nalanda …Opposite Parties *** For the petitioners : None For the O.P. no.2-4 : None For the State : Mr. C. Jawahar, APP *** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH *** Anjana Prakash, J. The petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 20.12.2003, by which the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Hilsa, Nalanda, in Cr. Revision No. 156 of 2003 has refused to interfere with the order dated 21.5.2003 and 3.5.2003 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hilsa, in Misc. Case no. 1 of 2002 and also for a direction to the opposite party nos. 4 to 6 to release the Maruti Van bearing No. DDV 8449 which was seized from the custody of the petitioner no.1, who claims to be the owner of the vehicle. 2 2. On 29.3.2004, this court had stayed the operation of Annexure-5 B by which the court had ordered auction of the car, in question, for payment of maintenance amount to the opposite party no.2. On 16.9.2004, the opposite party no.2 appeared, whereas, notices were issued to the opposite party nos. 4 and 5 and finally on 7.9.2005, the application was admitted for hearing. 3. Today neither of the parties has appeared before this court to assist the court so the matter is being disposed of on the basis of the papers filed herein by the parties. 4. The background of the case is that petitioner no.1 happens to be the full brother of opposite party no.3, who was the husband of opposite party no.2, who was liable to pay her some maintenance amount as per the judicial order passed in this regard. It has been averred that even before the process under section 82 Cr. P. C. was exhausted, recourse was taken to section 83 Cr. P. C. and the vehicle of the petitioner no.1, which he had purchased from his earnings, was ordered to be seized for payment of the maintenance amount due to the opposite party no.2 by the opposite party no.3. 5. The sole question before this court appears to be whether the vehicle seized in any manner belonged to the opposite party no.3, which would make it liable for seizure for payment of maintenance to the opposite party no.2. 6. Even though the opposite party no.2 was noticed, there is no chit of paper to show that the vehicle, in question, belongs to the opposite party no.3. 7. In view of such, this application is allowed and the orders dated 3.5.2003 & 21.5.2003 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial 3 Magistrate, Hilsa, in Misc. Case No. 1 of 2002 and the order dated 20.12.2003 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Hilsa (Nalanda), in Cr. Revision No. 156 of 2003 are hereby quashed. 8. The application stands allowed. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna Dated the 7th July, 2010 NAFR/ JA/-