Allowed

Imran Khan v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Aug 2024CRM-M/9999/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Vehicle seized under the Haryana cow protection law was refused release by the Magistrate and revisional court. Relying on co-ordinate Bench orders releasing similar vehicles on superdari, the High Court allowed the petition and directed release to the registered owner.

What did the court decide?

Seized vehicle RJ-14GK-9465 directed to be released on sapurdari to petitioner-registered owner on furnishing sapurdari bonds, subject to satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate/SDJM.

Imran Khan Vs State of Haryana — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

CRM-M-9999-2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

252 CRM-M-9999-2024 Date of Decision: 14.08.2024

¶5

Imran Khan ......... Pe��oner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Haryana ......... Respondent

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

¶9

Present Mr. Nafees Ahmad Khan, Advocate for the pe��oner.

¶10

Mr. Aashish Bishnoi, D.A.G., Haryana.

¶11

¶12

ANOOP CHITKARA, J. (ORAL)

¶13

FIR No.	Dated	Police Sta0on	Sec0ons
472	10.12.2021	Bilaspur, District	13(1), 13(2) of The Haryana
		Gurugram	Gauvansh Sanrakshan and
			Gaursamvardhan Act,2015

¶14

The present pe��on has been filed under Sec�on 482 of the Code of Criminal

¶15

Procedure, 1973 for quashing of impugned order dated 19.12.2022 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pataudi vide which applica�on filed by the pe��oner for releasing the vehicle No. RJ-14GK-9465 on Sapurdari was dismissed and impugned order dated 31.1.2024 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Add�onal Sessions Judge, Gurugram vide which revision filed by the pe��oner has wrongly been dismissed in above cap�oned FIR.

¶16

Counsel for the pe��oner has handed over a copy of order dated 19.02.2024 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in CRM-M-64773-2023 in which vehicle is released on Superdari.

¶17

A perusal of the order reveals that it would be appropriate to refer to paragraphs No. 8 and 9, which reads as under:

¶18

[8] Moreover, the prayer made by the pe��oner has been declined in terms of the provisions laid down under Sec�on 17 of the 2015 Act and the vires thereof were assailed before this Court by way of Civil Writ Pe��on No. 19153 of 2016 , �tled “Manipal Versus State of Haryana and others” ,

¶19

JYOTI 2024.08.15 08:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶20

CRM-M-9999-2024

¶21

¶22

which was disposed off vide order dated 30.05.2017 and the same reads as under:-

¶23

“The pe��oner has approached this Court seeking to challenge Sec�on 17 of the Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act, 2015 (for short, “the Act”) which provides for confisca�on of the vehicle used in any offence commi+ed under the Act.

¶24

Learned counsel for the State submi+ed that the process for amendment of the Act is in progress and he has instruc�ons from Dr. Rajbir Vats, Gaushala Development Officer, Department of Animal Husbandry & Dairying, Panchkula to state that the vehicle in ques�on namely, UP-11AT-1273 Ashoka Leyland Pick Up may be released to the pe��oner on superdari to the sa�sfac�on of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Yamuna Nagar.

¶25

In view of the stand taken by learned counsel for the State, learned counsel for the pe��oner submi+ed that the main writ pe��on can also be disposed of in case the State is in process of making amendment in the Act vires of which is under challenge.

¶26

A?er hearing learned counsel for the par�es, the present pe��on is disposed of at this stage as regards vires of Sec�on 17 of the Act is concerned, as amendment thereof is under considera�on.

¶27

In view of the stand taken with reference to release of vehicle, it is directed that the same shall be released to the pe��oner on superdari subject to the sa�sfac�on of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Yamuna Nagar. ”

¶28

[9] As per informa�on provided by the learned State Counsel, no such exercise of carrying out the amendment of the 2015 Act has been concluded so far and under similar circumstances, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 14.01.2020 in Azhar Husain’s case (supra) , has already ordered to release the vehicle allegedly involved under the 2015 Act on sapurdari. Relevant paras of the said order dated 14.01.2020 are re-produced hereunder:-

¶29

“A?er hearing learned counsel for the par�es, the present pe��on is allowed in view of the order dated 14.11.2017 passed in CRR-40132017 and the impugned orders dated 02.01.2019 and 11.06.2018 are hereby set aside.

¶30

JYOTI 2024.08.15 08:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶31

CRM-M-9999-2024

¶32

¶33

The truck in ques�on be released on superdari in favour of the registered owner, on furnishing superdari bond, subject to the sa�sfac�on of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/SDJM concerned.”

¶34

Given above, the present pe��on is allowed and the seized vehicle is hereby directed to be released on sapurdari to its registered owner–pe��oner, on furnishing sapurdari bonds, subject to the sa�sfac�on of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/SDJM concerned.

¶35

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

¶36

14.08.2024 Jyo�-II

¶37

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶38

JYOTI 2024.08.15 08:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

Imran Khan v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Imran Khan v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohinder Pal Singh Vs State of Punjab

Mall Singh Vs State of Punjab

Rajinder Kumar Vs Vijay Kumar

Balwant Singh Vs Om Parkash and Anr.

Shailender Vs State of Haryana and Another

Tejinder Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Another