IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.13872 of 2007 JAI RAM SINGH @ JAI PRAKASH SINGH, son of Raj Bahadur Singh, resident of village – Ahirauli Bazar, P S – Ahirauli Bazar, Distt. Kushi Nagar (UP) Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Kamakhya Narain Singh, Son of not known, presently posted as Inspector of Police, Pipra Kothi Police Station, Dist. Saran. ----------- 06. 27.04.2009 Petitioner claims himself to be the owner of a truck namely, UP 53 J – 5909. He wants quashing of entire criminal prosecution against him in Pipra Kothi P S Case No. 91 of 2006 instituted on the basis of a written report of police officer posted in the said police station. As per the FIR it is stated that on 24.9.2006 two trucks namely, UP 78 AN – 0742 and UP 53 J – 5909, later owned by the present petitioner, were seized by the enforcement authorities of the Road Transport Department, Government of Bihar for certain violation under the Motor Vehicles Act. After seizure the trucks were directed to be parked at the police station in question. But in the night of 25.9.2006 at around 1 o’clock the truck in question was driven away by the driver namely, Ram Prit Yadav and the petitioner was also on the vehicle. It is alleged that the vehicle in question has been removed from the custody and possession of police station in question without any authority of law and in this regard the FIR was registered under section 379 read with section 188/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted by the learned counsel representing the petitioner that the FIR deserves to be quashed because there is nothing to show on the record that any seizure was effected by the police or - 2 - any case prior to the institution of this FIR was instituted based on which the seizure could be effected. In absence of the same no substantive offence under section 379 or sections 188/34 IPC is made out. Based on such a submission the Court directed a carbon copy of the case diary as well as the material which had come during the course of investigation to be produced before the court, which came to be received. From the perusal of the case diary it emerges that seizure list had been prepared with regard to two vehicles by the Enforcement Officer of the Transport Department for violation of certain provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. The seizure list is on the record. The vehicles were ordered to be kept in safe custody of the police station in question and therefore, the contention of the petitioner that there was no seizure or any case instituted by the police may be an attractive submission to make but it does not reflect true and correct position in this regard. If the truck in question was detained by the competent authority and ordered to be parked at the police station then taking it away without authority of law does amount to substantive offence and therefore, there is no occasion for this Court to quash the FIR, which has been prayed for in the present application. No case for interference is made out. The application is dismissed. Let the case diary be returned to the court of Sri S K - 3 - Shrivastava, Judicial Magistrate, Motihari forthwith. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)