Dismissed

Rajendra Kumar Mishra v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC3 Jan 2024WPCR/515/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by relatives of a murder victim for recovery of lost gold ornaments seized by police and compensation. Court examined locus standi. Petition dismissed as petitioners failed to establish legal heirship, a prerequisite for filing the writ.

What did the court decide?

Application for enquiry and compensation rejected due to lack of locous standi without declaration of legal heirship.

Rajendra Kumar Mishra Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPCR No. 515 of 2023

¶5

Rajendra Kumar Mishra S/o Late Madangopal Mishra Aged About 71 Years R/o Gondpara Bilaspur, P.S. City Kotwali Tehsil And District Bilapsur (C.G.)

¶6

Smt Laxmi Mishra W/o Late Surendra Kumar Mishra Aged About 72 Years R/o Gondpara Bilaspur, P.S. City Kotwali Tehsil And District Bilapsur (C.G.)

¶7

Sonal Mishra D/o Late Surendra Kumar Mishra Aged About 36 Years R/o Gondpara Bilaspur, P.S. City Kotwali Tehsil And District Bilapsur (C.G.)

¶8

---- Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector - District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶11

In Charge Police Station - City Kotwali, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶12

The Superintendent of Police Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶13

Station House Officer - City Kotwali District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶14

---- Respondent

¶15

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶16

For Petitioners	: Mr. Swajeet Singh Ubeja, Advocate.
For Respondents-State	: Mr. H. S. Ahluwaliya, Deputy Advocate General

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶18

Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

¶19

Order on Board

¶20

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶21

04.01.2024

¶22

Heard Mr. Swajeet Singh Ubeja, learned counsel for the petitioners

¶23

and Mr. H. S. Ahluwaliya, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents.

¶24

¶25

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers:

¶26

“i. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly allow instant writ petition and direct the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur to conduct an enquiry towards the loss of seized goods in FIR no. 716/1974 City Kotwali Bilaspur.

¶27

ii. That, this Hon’ble Court may be kind enough to grant the petitioners compensation for the lost gold ornaments which were in custody of Respondent authorities at the current market value.

¶28

ii. That, the Hon’ble court may pass any other order it deems fit in the interest of justice.”

¶29

The facts, in brief, as per the petitioners is that in the year 1974, an FIR bearing Crime No. 716/1974 was registered by Police Station, City Kotwali, Bilaspur for offences under Section 302 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC) for causing death of one Shiv Rani Bai (Maternal grand-mother of the present petitioner No. 1 herein after referred to as the victim) who was strangulated by two unidentified accused persons and thereafter gold ornaments from her body were looted after committing the heinous crime. The police caught hold of the accused person and during the course of investigation, the gold ornaments which were looted from the body of the victim were also seized. After completion of entire

¶30

¶31

investigation, the respondent-Police submitted its charge-sheet which contained the seizure memorandum of all the items that have been seized by them during the trial, the memorandum clearly states that a total quantity of 588 grams of gold ornaments were seized. The learned trial Court examined total number of 8 witnesses and on 05.11.1999, passed the judgment acquitting both the accused in the above mentioned case.

¶32

It is important to mention here that during the course of examination, PW-4 Salikram has stated before the trial Court that on the date of the incident, the Police personnel has found the accused with the stolen articles i.e. gold which was seized by the police and PW-6, Narendra Pratap Tiwari who is also a witness to the seizure of the gold, confirms the seizure.

¶33

Mr. Swajit Singh Ubeja, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the legal heirs of the victim in ST No. 380 of 1998 from the body of whom the gold ornaments were looted and kept in the custody of the respondents. He submits that the statement of PW-6 who has made the seizure memorandum clearly establishes the fact that the seized ornaments were never produced before the Court during entire course of trial and were kept in the custody of the Police Officials. He also submits that it is mandatory under Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) that on conclusion of the trial, the concerned criminal Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the disposal of property which was part of the trial. Sub-clause 3 of the Section 452 Cr.P.C. also gives the Court of session to appoint any Chief Judicial

¶34

¶35

Magistrate to carry out necessary enquiry regarding the disposal of the property which has been the subject matter of the trial or whose regard any offence seems to have been committed.

¶36

Mr. Ubeja further submits that though the accused persons were acquitted by the learned trial Court, however, while passing the final order, there is no mention with regard to disposal of the articles seized by the police during course of the investigation which is evident from the judgment dated 05.11.1999. The gold which was seized by the police was neither produced before the learned Trial Court nor was given to the complainant or his legal heirs.

¶37

Mr. Ubeja places reliance upon the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil v. State of Mysore reported in (1977) 4 SCC 358 (paragraphs 6 to 8) and Inter Continental Agencies (P) Ltd. v. Amin Chand Khanna, reported in (1980) 3 SCC 103 (paragraph 2).

¶38

Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the respondents/State submits that from perusal of Annexure P/ 6 which is a communication made by the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, that the matter related to the year 1974 and the matter being old, despite best efforts, the relevant documents/registers are not available and as such, it was not possible to trace out the seized gold.

¶39

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials available on record.

¶40

On a pointed query being made from the learned counsel for the

¶41

¶42

petitioners with respect to locus of the petitioners for filing of the present petition as he is neither complainant of the victim nor the legal heir of the victim, Mr. Ubeja states that the petitioners happen to be relative of the informant as the deceased was issueless and she was residing with the informant.

¶43

The judgments cited by the learned counsel petitioners does not justify the locus of the petitioners for filing the present petition. The incident has taken placed in the year 1974 for which an FIR was been lodged by the complainant for the murder of the deceased. After several years, the petitioners have come up before this Court by filing of the present petition with aforesaid prayers.

¶44

It is true that the petitioners had moved an application under Section 452 of the Cr.P.C. demanded the jewelry which were looted from the deceased and the same was seized but during the course of trial the same is found to be missing for which the petitioners have moved an application before Magistrate concerned and the same was dismissed with the observation that the petitioners may approach appropriate forum for redressal of their grievance.

¶45

The present petition is not maintainable before this Court as for redressal of the grievance, the petitioners ought to have first established their locus and further establish the fact they are the legal heirs of deceased as there may be some other claimants of the deceased, who may claim the jewelry, etc. and ask for compensation. Hence, we are not inclined to allow the present petition holding that the petitioners have no locus for filing of the

¶46

¶47

present petition without they being declared to be the legal heirs of

¶48

the deceased from the competent Court / Authority.

¶49

In view of the above, the present petition stands dismissed .

¶50

Sd/- Sd/-

¶51

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶52

Rajshekhar / Hem

Rajendra Kumar Mishra v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Kumar Mishra v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharat Lal Sharma Vs Union Of India

Pramod Nayak Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhagwat Adil Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Arun Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vijay Chandrakar Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Biseshar Vs State of Chhattisgarh