Dismissed

Suhel Hussain v. State and Anr.

Rajasthan HC15 May 2018CRLMP/1228/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur dismissed a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging orders granting interim custody of seized vehicles. The Court held that since the petitioner was an accused against whom a charge sheet was filed regarding the purchase of vehicles with extorted money, the impugned orders were legal and no illegality existed to warrant setting t

What did the court decide?

Petitioner aggrieved with orders granted interim custody of seized vehicles was not entitled to custody as he was an accused; petition dismissed.

Suhel Hussain Vs State and Anr. — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1228 / 2018

¶3

Suhel Hussain Son of Shri Mustaq Hussain, By Caste Muslim, Resident of 491, Amba Mata Scheme, Udaipur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Pankaj Mehta Son of Shri Dhanraj Mehta, House No.320, Amba Mata Scheme, Nearby Sri Stambh Apartment, Amba Mata, District Udaipur.

¶7

----Respondents

¶8

_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. G.S. Bhati

¶9

For Respondent(s) : Mr. V.S. Rajpurohit, P.P.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

¶11

Order

¶12

15/05/2018

¶13

This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 28.09.2016 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act Cases, Udaipur (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the revisional court’) whereby the revision petition No.136/2016 preferred on behalf of the petitioner has been dismissed along with the revision petition No.137/2016.

¶14

The aforesaid revision petition No.136/2016 was filed against the order dated 06.06.2016 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Udaipur (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the trial court’) in FIR No.141/2016 of Police Station Amba Mata, District Udaipur, whereby it has allowed the application under Sections

¶15

(2 of 4)

¶16

[CRLMP-1228/2018]

¶17

451 and 457 Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the respondent No.2 for releasing three vehicles-Volkswagen Car No.DL-4C-AV-5340, Maruti Swift Car No.DL-3-C-7155 and Open Mahindra Jeep No.MP04-W-4091 on supurdaginama on certain conditions.

¶18

It appears that respondent No.2 has filed FIR No.141/2016 at Police Station Amba Mata, District Udaipur with the allegation that the petitioner and some other accused persons have extorted lacs from his son Himan Mehta on various dates. It is alleged that in total Rs.12 lac have been extorted from the son of the respondent No.2 and from the said money, the accused petitioner had purchased the above referred three vehicles.

¶19

The police after completion of the investigation has filed charge sheet against the petitioner and some other accused persons while concluding that from the extorted money of Rs.12 lac, the petitioner has purchased the above referred three vehicles. Taking into consideration above fact that the trial court has directed to hand over the interim custody of those vehicles seized by the police in connection with the FIR No.141/2016 of Police Station Amba Mata, District Udaipur, filed by the respondent No.2, to him till the conclusion of the trial.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that vide order dated 06.06.2016, the trial court has decided two applications under Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C., one by respondent No.2 and another by Shafiq Khan. The trial court has allowed the application of the respondent No.2 whereas the application preferred by Shafiq Khan was dismissed.

¶21

It is contended that against the dismissal of the said

¶22

(3 of 4)

¶23

[CRLMP-1228/2018]

¶24

application, Shafiq Khan has filed a revision petition before the revisional court which also came to be dismissed and being aggrieved with this he has preferred S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.142/2017 and this Court vide order dated 08.01.2018 has allowed the said criminal misc. petition and ordered that the vehicle bearing registration No.DL-4C-AV-5340 (transferred registration No.RJ-27 CE-9040) be handed over on supurdaginama to Shafiq Khan.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the order dated 08.01.2018, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and the respondent No.2 be directed to return the vehicles at the police station.

¶26

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having gone through the impugned orders, I do not find any merit in this criminal misc. petition.

¶27

It is noticed that the petitioner has not moved any application before the trial court for interim custody of the three vehicles on supurdaginama, seized by the police in connection with the FIR No.141/2016 of Police Station Amba Mata, District Udaipur. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is one of the accused in the above referred FIR against whom charge sheet has already been filed and he is facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 384 and 386 IPC as the police has concluded that petitioner has purchased the above referred three vehicles from the money extorted by him from the son of the respondent No.2.

¶28

So far as regarding Shafiq Khan is concerned, this Court has clearly observed that the said person is not an accused in criminal

¶29

(4 of 4)

¶30

[CRLMP-1228/2018]

¶31

case relating to the alleged extortion from the respondent No.2’s son and it has come on the record that he has purchased the car in question from the petitioner after registration of the FIR.

¶32

This Court has come to the conclusion that since Shafiq Khan has no involvement in the criminal case pending in the Court, arising out of the FIR No.141/2016 of Police Station Amba Mata, District Udaipur and is the registered owner of the car in question, the interim custody of the vehicle cannot be denied to him.

¶33

It is observed that case of the petitioner is altogether different from the other person-Shafiq Khan because charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner by the police while concluding that he has purchased the above referred three vehicles out of the extorted money and the petitioner is the prime accused in connection with the case arising out of FIR No.141/2016 of Police Station Amba Mata, District Udaipur.

¶34

Hence, I do not find any illegality in the impugned orders passed by the courts below.

¶35

Resultantly, this criminal misc. petition is dismissed.

¶36

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J.

¶37

Taruna

Suhel Hussain v. State and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suhel Hussain v. State and Anr.

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

Deepak Arora Vs State

Suresh Upadhyay Vs State

Mukesh Vs State

Vasudev and Ors. Vs State and Anr.

Shabnam Vs State and Anr.

Ketan Vs State and Anr.