Smt. Chandrawati v. State of U.P.
Case brief
What is this about?
Criminal revision filed by vehicle owner challenging order rejecting release application for tractor used in alleged crime. Court applied settled law holding that long detention of vehicles at police stations causing damage is unjust. Revision allowed and lower court order remanded for prompt disposal.
What did the court decide?
Impugned order dated 06.09.2019 set aside; case remitted to lower court to pass fresh reasoned order within two months.
What the court decided
1
Court No. - 80
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3581 of 2019 Revisionist :- Smt. Chandrawati Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Sudhir Kumar Agarwal,Saurabh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the opposite party and perused the record.
This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with the prayer for quashing the order dated 06.09.2019 passed by Sri Sunil Singh (HJS), learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Sonbhadra in Session Trial No.74 of 2019 (State of U.P. Vs. Lakshmikant), arising out of Case Crime No.10 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 332, 427 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Raipur, District Sonbhadra.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist is the registered owner of vehicle/tractor bearing Registration No. U.P. 64 X-2478, Chasis No. WXTN30427158276 and Engine No. 391354STN16927A. Thereafter, on 15.03.2019 the police of Police Station Raipur arrested the revisionist due to suspicion along with her tractor and challaned her under Sections 147, 148, 302, 307, 332, 333, 353, 427 and 506 I.P.C. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that the revisionist has already been granted bail by the learned court below in the aforesaid case and the trial has commenced before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Sonbhadra
Learned counsel for the revisionist further argued that the revisionist has been falsely implicated in the present case.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the lower court properly exercised the power under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. to keep the seized vehicle in the police station yard without releasing the owner.
Whether the delay in releasing the vehicle caused damage to the property and violated the owner's rights.
Whether the impugned order rejecting the release application should be quashed and the matter remanded for a fresh order.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Smt. Chandrawati
- respondent
State of U.P.
Coram
Shamim Ahmed
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · June
- Registered
- Case no.
- CRLR/3581/2019
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court