Dismissed¶23

Dr Mohd Azeem Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Feb 2026CRLR/688/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Vehicle release / interim custody refused; 'owner' definition Section 2(30) Motor Vehicle Act 1988; unregistered sale letter and notarised agreement confer no ownership; financier versus possessor; Magma Leasing distinguished; Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai applied (release only to owner); BNS 2023 offences Case Crime No. 73 of 2025, PS Nanauta, District Saharanpur; outstanding Rs. 14,16,000 to Punjab National Bank; CRLR No. 688 of 2026, decided 17.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

The revisionist is not the owner of the vehicle and is not covered by the definition of 'owner' in Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988: he is neither the registered owner, nor a minor or guardian of a minor, nor a person in possession under a hire-purchase, lease or hypothecation agreement in his favour. ¶17

Dr Mohd Azeem Ahmad vs State of U.P. and Another — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the revisionist falls within the definition of 'owner' under Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 so as to be entitled to release of the vehicle. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

¶17

Ratio / Principle

The alleged sale letter and notarised agreement are personal documents having no legal sanctity unless ownership has been transferred by the registering authority; the ownership papers filed were not executed before the competent registering authority, and the insurance and certificate of registration stand in the name of Sanjiv Kumar.

¶22

Key takeaways

The law laid down in M/s Magma Leasing Ltd (supra), where the claimant was a financier, does not cover the revisionist's claim of ownership.ratio¶18
As per the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra), the vehicle may be released, but only in favour of the owner; the revisionist not being the owner, release to him is impermissible.ratio¶19
The learned trial court passed a detailed and reasoned order and there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order; the revision is therefore dismissed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision (Allahabad High Court, Abdul Shahid, J.) against order dated 20.11.2025 of the Judicial Magistrate, Devband, Saharanpur rejecting release of vehicle XUV-700 UP-11CW8005 seized in Case Crime No. 73 of 2025 under Sections 61(2), 318(4), 316(2), 352, 351(2) BNS, PS Nanauta, Saharanpur. Revisionist claimed entitlement to release relying on an agreement dated 7.5.2025 with registered owner Sanjiv Kumar and an outstanding of Rs. 14,16,000/- due to Punjab National Bank, invoking the definition of 'owner' in Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. Held: the revisionist is neither the registered owner nor covered by Section 2(30) — there is no hire-purchase, lease or hypothecation agreement in his favour; the unregistered sale letter/notarised agreement is a personal document without legal sanctity absent transfer by the registering authority, and the insurance and registration certificate remain in the name of Sanjiv Kumar; M/s Magma Leasing Ltd, 2017 (100) ACC 750 (financier-claimant) distinguished; per Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai, 2003(1) JIC 615 (SC), release can only be in favour of the owner. No illegality or irregularity in the reasoned trial court order; revision dismissed.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 688 of 2026

¶3

Dr Mohd Azeem Ahmad

¶4

	Versus		.....Revisionist(s)
State of U.P. and Another			.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Dharmendra Gupta	Kumar	Gupta, Kiran
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 87

¶5

HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA for the State.

¶7

The present criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 20.11.2025, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Devband, Saharanpur in Misc. Case No. Nil of 2025 (State Vs. Sushil Kumar and others) in Case Crime No. 73 of 2025 under Section 61(2), 318(4), 316(2), 352, 351(2) of BNS, Police Station Nanauta, District Saharanpur, whereby application for release of vehicle bearing Registration No. XUV-700 UP-11CW8005 has been rejected.

¶8

Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist is not the owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No. XUV-700 UP11CW8005 (hereinafter referred to as the vehicle in question), but he is covered as per Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.

¶9

Section 2 (30) reads as under:

¶10

“Owner” means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered, and where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase, agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement."

¶11

Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied on the agreement

¶12

CRLR No. 688 of 2026

¶13

¶14

executed between Sanjiv Kumar and Mohd. Azeem Ahmad dated 7.5.2025, wherein, it has been agreed between the parties that said vehicle is financed and an outstanding of Rs. 14,16,000/ is due to the Punjab National Bank, which is now liability of the revisionist-Mohd. Azeem, who is seeking seven months time for payment of the same. Hence, documents in question has been delivered to the revisionist.

¶15

Learned counsel for the revisionist has filed relevant ownership papers to be transferred in the name of the revisionist, but they have not been executed before the competent registering authority. The vehicle in question is under insurance in the name of Sanjiv Kumar. The certificate of registration of transfer department, Saharanpur is in the name of Sanjiv Kumar.

¶16

It is true and correct that the vehicle in question is not under the ownership of the revisionist. The revisionist is not covered under the definition of Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. Neither he is registered owner nor he is a minor or guardian of such minor, nor the vehicle is hire-purchase agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation in his favour.

¶17

Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied on law laid down by this Court in M/s Magma Leasing Ltd and anotehr Vs. State of U.P. and another; 2017 (100) ACC 750 wherein the revisionist, Magma Leasing Limited, submitted an application for release of vehicle claiming itself to be owner of the vehicle on the basis of being Financier, but here the ownership as claimed by the revisionist is not covered as per said law laid down by this Court in the said judgment of M/s Magma Leasing Ltd.(supra).

¶18

As per the direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat; 2003(1) JIC 615 (SC) , the vehicle may be released, but that has to be released in favour of the owner.

¶19

Learned trial court has passed a specific detail and reasoned order and there is no impunity upon it that he had filed any cogent evidence of ownership in his favour. The alleged sale letter, notary agreement is only

¶20

CRLR No. 688 of 2026

¶21

¶22

a personal document which is having no legal sanctity unless that has been executed in the name of ownership and has been transferred by the registering authority.

¶23

In view thereof, there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. The revision is liable to be dismissed and it is dismissed.

¶24

(Abdul Shahid,J.)

¶25

February 17, 2026

¶26

sfa/

¶27

Digitally signed by :- SYED FAHEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dr Mohd Azeem Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Mohd Azeem Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rajendra Prasad Mishra vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sanjay Tiwari vs State of Up and Another

Sunil Kumar vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Sonveer Singh vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Sangam Lal Aarak vs State of U.P. and Another

Arjun Singh vs State of U.P. and Another