IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-17030 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.6.2010 Rajesh Singh Kakkar .... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present :- Ms. Divya Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Ashok Jindal, Addl. A.G. Haryana for the respondent – State Mr. Ramesh Sindhar, Advocate for the complainant ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) Heard. Perused the record. An FIR was lodged against the applicant-petitioner under Sections 384, 506 IPC and Section 3 of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989. As per the complainant, petitioner who is a Financer with the help of associates snatched the vehicle in question from the possession of the complainant and uttered Kameena, Chuhra and Deid. Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner while relying on Annexure P-5(order dated 19.5.2010)passed by Civil Court, Karnal directing to maintain status quo regarding possession of vehicle has argued that Civil Court is ceased of the matter. He further argued that whether vehicle was snatched from the complainant as per the version of the FIR or was handed over in the custody of the Company by the one of the guarantor is a matter which is to be adjudicated by the Civil Court. He further argued that alleged utterance of the words as mentioned in the FIR Crl. Misc. No. M-17030 of 2010 (O&M) 2 does not attract provisions of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocity) Act. Mr. Ramesh Sindhar, learned counsel appearing for the complainant has stated that the only source of livelihood of the complainant is in the custody of the accused-applicant, hence accused-applicant is not entitled for any relief from this Court. On being asked, he fairly stated that complainant has to move before the Civil Court for releasing of the vehicle in view of the status quo passed by learned Civil Court. Mr. Ashok Jindal, Addl. A.G. Haryana assisted by Investigating Officer fairly stated that as to whether vehicle was snatched or was handed over by one of the guarantor is a question which precisely is to be decided by Civil Court. He does not desire custody of the accused-petitioner. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that nothing is to be recovered from him and his custody is not required by the police. Question of releasing of the vehicle is to be decided by the Civil Court in view of the pendency of the civil suit and interim status quo order passed by Civil Court. No offence can be said having been committed under S.C./S.T. Act. Let accused be released on bail by the Arresting Officer at the time of his arrest subject to the conditions mentioned under Section 438(2) of Cr.P.C. However, it is made clear that accused-applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and shall not leave State of Haryana without prior permission of the Magistrate concerned. The petition stands disposed of. (ALOK SINGH) 21.6.2010 JUDGE reena