IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.282 of 2007 AJAY CHAUDHARY @ AJAY KUMAR CHAUDHARY, S/o. Sri Kapildeo Chaudhary, r/o. Mohalla- Jay Prakash Nagar, Khagaria, P.S.+ Distt. – Khagaria. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, through the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Superintendent of Police, Begusarai, 3. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Balia, Begusarai. 4. Sri Kamlesh Prasad Sharma, the then Officer-in-Charge on 3rd November 2004 of Sahebpur kamal P.S., Distt. Begusarai. 5. The Officer-in-Charge, Sahebpur Kamal, P.S., Begusarai. 6. Ranvir @ Ranvir Thakur, S/o. Sri Kamal Nath Thakur, Manager, Samastipur Branch, M/s. Shrachi Securiteis Ltd., P.15, India Exchange Place, Extension, Kolkata, 700073. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Akhileshwar Prasad Singh, Advocate Counsel for respondent No.4: Mr. S.A. Narain, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Prabhu Narain Sharma, Mr. Shanti Kumar Counsel for the Respndent No.6: Mr. Ranjan Kumar Sharma,Advocates. Counsel for the State/respondents: Mr. Subhash Pd. Singh, G.A.-8 ----------- 12 24.06.2009 The writ petitioner was driving one Mahindra Swaraj Jeep No.BR9C/2302 and he was carrying passengers including one Arun Kumar Singh, Accountant, S.B.I. Lakho Branch and in course of that the said Arun Kumar Singh was overpowered and abducted. Regarding that occurrence of kidnapping Sahebpur Kamal P.S. Case No.23 of 2004 under Sections 364 and 120B of I.P.C. was lodged on the statement of informant Niranjan Pd. Singh, the brother of victim Arun Kumar Singh. The petitioner was made an accused in the case. The police seized the said Mahindra Swaraj Jeep on the allegation that the 2 vehicle was used in the commission of the crime. The petitioner had purchased the vehicle on hire purchase agreements for a price of Rs.5,40,000/- and cash payment of Rs.1,33,740/- was paid and the remaining amount was to be paid in 36 installments each installment being of Rs.11,960/- but no installment had been paid to the financer M/S. Shrachi Securities Ltd., the respondent No.6. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for compensation for the damage caused to the vehicle during its seizure and custody with the police. The petitioner’s case is that while he seized jeep was in custody of police the concerned Officer-in-Charge of the police station i.e., respondent No.4 Kamlesh Prasad Sharma was using the vehicle by getting it unauthorisedly plied by a private driver for hire and in course of that the vehicle dashed against a tree and it was badly damaged. The petitioner’s case is also that he approached the police authorities and made complaint about the damage of the vehicle as a result of which matter was examined by the police officials and they found that the Officer-in-Charge i.e., 3 respondent No.4 had in fact caused damage to the vehicle due to its regular unauthorized plying on hire for unlawful gain. The petitioner says that the higher police officials had taken departmental action against respondent No.4 for such unauthorized activity. On these grounds the petitioner has claimed for compensation due to the damage caused to the vehicle. Petitioner says that since he is the owner of the vehicle and the vehicle was seized from his possession he is entitled for compensation for the damage caused to the vehicle. The State respondents have filed their counter affidavits wherein it is accepted that the respondent No.4 was found guilty for the misuse of the vehicle for which departmental action was taken against him. Annexure-C to the counter affidavit is the order of the Superintendent of Police, Begusarai, passed in a departmental proceeding against respondent No.4 awarding him punishment of stoppage of two increments. In this case the Financer, M/S. Shrachi Secirities Ltd. has appeared as respondent No.6 and has filed I.A. No.535 wherein it is stated that this intervener petitioner 4 remains the exclusive owner of the said vehicle until full settlement of the due amount by the writ petitioner. It was submitted on behalf of respondent No.6 being the owner of the vehicle is entitled for the release of the vehicle and all other claims relating to the vehicle. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the vehicle was seized from his possession and he claims ownership over the same he is entitled for compensation with regard to the damage of the vehicle. It was submitted that the vehicle was registered in the name of the petitioner. But it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent No.6 that the vehicle was under hypothecation and the real owner of the vehicle was respondent No.6 because none of the installments had been paid and the respondent No.6 is the owner of the vehicle till full settlement of the dues is made. The petitioner admits that in this case charge sheet has been submitted and the petitioner is facing trial for the offence under Section 364A and 120B/34 of I.P.C. under S.T. No.345 of 2004 before the Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. I, Begusarai. It is also the admitted 5 position that the petitioner had prayed before the C.J.M. for the release of the vehicle but the prayer had been refused. Annexure-2 to the petition the order dated 06.05.2004 of the learned C.J.M., Begusarai, which mentions about the rejection of the prayer for release on the grounds that petitioner’s complicity in the offence as appearing from case-diary. The petitioner does not show that the order dated 06.05.2004 has been set aside by the higher authority. In this case the learned counsel for the respondent No.6 submits that the respondent No.6 has also filed his petition on 10.07.2006 before the trial court for the release of the vehicle in his favour and it is pending for orders. Thus in this case there are two claimants of the vehicle. The petitioner claimed for the release of the vehicle on the ground that the vehicle was seized from his possession and he is the owner of the vehicle but his prayer for release was rejected by the learned C.J.M. and the position stands. The financer i.e., respondent No.6 has also approached the trial court for the release of the 6 vehicle on the ground that he is the real owner of the vehicle and thus he is entitled for its release. Thus, the very question of the ownership of the vehicle is in a disputed stage at the moment due to the petitioner and the respondent No.6 both claiming the vehicle. Besides this it has also been argued on behalf the State-respondents that the seized vehicle is an exhibit of the case concerned with the commission of the crime and that on the conclusion of the trial the trial court has every authority to confiscate the vehicle if the same is found to have been used for the commission of the offence. Therefore, the matters regarding the ownership and its being subjected to confiscation are all not certain at this stage. Besides this it is also not possible to quantify the damage as claimed because it will involve consideration of certain disputed facts like the accident and nature of damage which can be ascertained only on the report of experts like the M.V.I. and the authorized repairers. These things cannot be ascertained at this stage. It was argued that even if a case of compensation is found that could be done only after the conclusion of the trial when the trial court does not 7 consider for confiscating the vehicle and takes a view to release the vehicle to either of the claimants namely the petitioner and respondent no.6. In such view of the matters, I find that the petitioner’s prayer is not fit to be considered at this stage. Hence, the petition is dismissed as such. Mkr. (C.M. Prasad, J.)