Allowed

Paras Nath v. The State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC3 Dec 2014Cr.M.P./2386/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand quashed orders refusing the release of the petitioner's seized truck. It held that the vehicle remained registered to the petitioner and was not transferred, rendering previous order reasons irrelevant on the ownership aspect.

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 6.5.2014 and 8.7.2014 by S.D.J.M. Palamau and A.S.J. Palamau quashed and set aside; matter remitted for fresh order.

Paras Nath Vs The State Of Jharkhand — Property and Title | Jharkhand HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

¶2

Cr.M.P. No. 2386 of 2014

¶3

Paras Nath ….... …. …... ….... ….. …..... Petitioner -- Versus -- State of Jharkhand ….. …... …......…..... Opposite Party ---

¶4

CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.P. BHATT

¶5

--For the Petitioner :- Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate For the State :- A.P.P.

¶6

05 / 03.12.2014 The present application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for quashing / setting aside of orders dated 6.5.2014 and 8.7.2014, passed respectively by the S.D.J.M., Palamau in connection with Hussainabad P.S. Case No. 4/14, corresponding to G.R. Case No.31/14 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 414/120-B of the I.P.C., and subsequent order dated 8.7.14, passed in Criminal Revision No.43/14, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Palamau, Daltonganj, thereby the prayer for release of the petitioner's vehicle bearing registration No.BR-01GA-7872 seized in connection with above referred offence, has been rejected.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the prayer of the petitioner was rejected by the learned court below on the ground that the Registration Certificate discloses that it was valid up to 25.2.2012 only. Learned counsel for the petition, by referring page-45, i.e. xerox copy of the Certificate of Registration issued by the Department of Transport, Government of Bihar, pointed out that the date of Registration is 5.3.2010, but, the Fitness validity was up to 3.8.2015 and the registration always remains with the owner of the vehicle untill the vehicle is transferred to some other party, and he has further submitted that without proper appreciating the above facts, the learned court below rejected the application. It is further submitted that even the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while dealing with the revision application, did not appreciate the above fact and it has gone further and the registration of the said truck was initially valid from 8.3.2014 to 7.3.2015 and this goes to show that the said truck was not covered under the valid policy of insurance on the alleged date of occurrence, and by assailing such reason, the Revision was also dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. It is further

¶8

submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by this Court.

¶9

Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State tried to justify the order passed by the learned court below.

¶10

Having regard to the above submissions, and more particularly, in view of the xerox copy of the Certificate of Registration issued by the Department of Transport, Government of Bihar, in favour of the petitioner, which is produced by page-45, along with the Annexure-5 series, it transpires that the vehicle in question bearing registration No.BR-01GA-7872, is registered in the name of Paras Nath and the registration date is 5.3.2010. It is pertinent to note that when the registration is done by the Department of Transport, the vehicle in question always stood in the name of the owner of the vehicle untill it is transferred to some other party under the Motor Vehicle Act. The other documents referred by the learned court below has no relevance with respect to owner ship of the vehicle.

¶11

In view of the above discussion, the orders dated 6.5.2014 and 8.7.2014, passed respectively by the learned S.D.J.M., Palamau, in connection with Hussainabad P.S.Case No.4/14, corresponding to G.R. No.31/14 for the alleged offence punishable under Section 414 and 120-B of the I.P.C., and the subsequent order dated 8.7.2014, passed in Criminal Revision No.43/14, are hereby, ordered to be quashed and set aside, and the matter is remitted to the learned court below to pass the order afresh in accordance with law.

¶12

The learned court below, after going through the documents and on verification of the documents on record regarding release of vehicle, will pass appropriate order upon appropriate condition as may be deemed fit and proper in accordance with law.

¶13

In view of the above, the instant Cr.M.P. stands disposed

¶14

of.

¶15

( P.P. Bhatt, J.)

¶16

Paras Nath v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paras Nath v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shail Wala Tiwary Vs State Of Jharkhand

Mithu Devi Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Anand Nayak Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Kartik Chandra Sarkar Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Shankar Mandal and Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Sandep Kumar Mahto Vs State of Jharkhand