Futile to keep seized vehicles at police stations for long: Jammu and Kashmir High Court

Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal stressed that courts vested with the power regarding such case-related property must immediately pass appropriate orders for its release by taking the requisite bond and security to ensure return of the vehicle, if required at any later point of time.

"This Court is of the considered view that whatever be the situation, it would be a futile exercise to keep seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period," the single-judge observed.

Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal

Justice Nargal added that while the court under Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) cannot decide the title of any property or any claim to manage the same, it can dispose of the property on the basis of possession.

"The function which the Court exercises under Section 452 is of a judicial nature. In making that order, the court must undoubtedly have due regard to the entitlement claimed by the person who seeks the possession of the property," the Court said.

The Court was hearing a vehicle owner's petition seeking quashing of the order to forfeit his goods carrier and its transfer to Society for Prevention of Cruelty Against Animals (SPCA) under Rule 8 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules 2017.

The vehicle had been seized in connection with a case registered in 2023 under Section 188 (Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 11 (treating animals cruelly) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.

After the vehicle owner Qadeer Hussain had pleaded guilty to the allegations against him, the Chief Judicial Magistrate Poonch had directed forfeiture of his vehicle and its transfer to the SPCA.

The order passed by CJM was later upheld by the Principal Sessions Judge Poonch, compelling Hussain to approach the High Court for quashing of the orders and release of his Tata Goods Carrier.

Justice Nargal at the outset noted that the petitioner had been deprived of his vehicle by wrongly applying Rule 8 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Rules 2017.

The Court noted that the Rule only pertains to the status of the animal upon disposal of litigation and could not have been applied for forfeiture of the vehicle.

"The order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Poonch accordingly, is flawed...," it said.

After examining the law, the Court noted that Section 452 of CrPC allows disposal of the case property at the conclusion of trial. However, it found no reference to the provision in CJM's order.

Thus, the Court quashed the CJM's order as well as the order passed by the appellate court.

With regard to the appellate authority's order, the Court said it had failed to notice that the CJM had never relied upon Section 452 of CrPC at the time of confiscation or forfeiture of the vehicle.

"Rather, the appellate authority instead of quashing the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Poonch to that extent, has instead upheld the said order by placing reliance on Section 452 Cr.PC in a way to undo the wrong done by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Poonch," it said.

In this backdrop, the Court allowed the petition by remanding the matter back to the CJM for a fresh decision.

Advocate Lawanya Sharma represented the petitioner.

Advocate Priyanka Bhat (vice Senior Advocate General Monika Kohli) represented the State.