WP(C)/3112/2024 of M/S HIMANSU TRAILER SERVICE Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS on 18 August 2026

GAHC010120712024

2026:GAU-AS:11871

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3112/2024 M/S HIMANSU TRAILER SERVICE A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NALAPARA, OPPOSITE CHEVROLET SHOWROOM, NH37, DIST.- KAMRUP (METRO), GUWAHATI- 781028, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI CHANDVIR, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, HOME DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, DIST.- KAMRUP (METRO), GUWAHATI-6, ASSAM 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM ULUBARI DIST.- KAMRUP (METRO) GUWAHATI- 781007 3:SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KAMRUP AMINGAON DIST- KAMRUP PIN- 781031 ASSAM 4:OFFICER-IN-CHARGE CHANGSARI POLICE STATION DIST.- KAMRUP PIN- 781101 ASSAM 5:OFFICER-IN-CHARGE NORTH GUWAHATI-POLICE-OUT POST UNDER CHANGSARI POLICE STATION

PIN- 781030 DIST.- KAMRUP ASSA

B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

Advocates for the petitioner(s) : Mr. SJ Sarmah Advocates for the respondent(s) : Ms. U Das Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate Assam Date on which Judgment is reserved: NA

Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 19.08.2026

Whether the Pronouncement is of the : Yes Operative Part of the Judgment Whether the Full Judgment has been : No Pronounced JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL)

Heard Mr. SJ Sarmah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Ms. U Das, the learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam, who appears on behalf of the respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking compensation on account of the loss suffered by the petitioner due to negligence of the respondent authorities while the truck belonging to the petitioner in the custody of the respondent authorities was damaged due to fire.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a proprietorship firm and the registered owner of a Goods Carrying Truck bearing Registration No.AS25- CC-7741. The said vehicle was seized on 10.02.2022 in connection with Changsari Police Station Case No.77/2022

under

Sections 120(B)/379/411/465/468/471 of the IPC. However, when the vehicle was in the custody of the Police Authorities, the said vehicle was gutted in fire which took place on 11.02.2022. The petitioner thereupon approached the concerned respondent authorities seeking compensation and the same having been denied, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

4. This Court finds it pertinent to take note of Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (for short, ‘the Code of 1973’), the provision which was holding the field at the time when the incident had occurred. Section 451 of the Code of 1973 empowers the Jurisdictional Magistrate to pass appropriate orders with regard to properties which are seized by any Police Officers for proper custody pending conclusion of the enquiry or trial and to order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of after recording such evidence as it thinks fit, as well as if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, to dispose of the same.

5. This Court finds it relevant to take note of the judgment of the Supreme

Court in the case of Smt. Basava Kom Dyamogouda Patil Vs. State of Mysore reported in (1977) 4 SCC 358, wherein the Supreme Court dealt with the case where the seized articles were not available for being returned to the complainant. In the said case, the recovered ornaments were kept in a trunk in the Police Station, and later on it was found missing and the question was with regard to the payment of those articles. In that regard, the Supreme Court observed at paragraph No.4 of the said judgment that the object of the Code seems to be that any property which is in the control of the Court either directly or indirectly should be disposed of by the Court and a just and proper order should be passed by the Court regarding its disposal. In a criminal case, the police always acts under the direct control of the Court and has to take orders from it at every stage of an inquiry or trial. The Supreme Court further observed that the Court exercises an overall control on the actions of the police officers in every case where it has taken cognizance. Paragraph 4 of the said judgment being relevant is reproduced hereinunder: “4. The object and scheme of the various provisions of the Code appear to be that where the property which has been the subject-matter of an offence is seized by the police it ought not to be retained in the custody of the Court or of the police for any time longer than what is absolutely necessary. As the seizure of the property by the police amounts to a clear entrustment of the property to a Government servant, the idea is that the property should be restored to the original owner after the necessity to retain it ceases. It is manifest that there may be two stages when the property may be returned to the owner. In the first place it may be returned during any inquiry or trial. This may particularly be necessary where the property concerned is subject to speedy or natural decay. There may be other compelling reasons also which may justify the disposal of the property to the owner or otherwise in the interest of justice. The High Court and the Sessions Judge proceeded on the footing that one of the essential requirements of the Code is that the articles concerned must be produced before the Court or should be in its custody. The object of the Code seems to be that any property which is in the control of the Court either directly or indirectly should be disposed of by the Court and a just and proper order should be passed by the Court regarding its disposal. In a criminal case, the police always acts under the direct control of the Court and has to take orders from it at every stage of an inquiry or trial. In this broad sense, therefore, the Court exercises an overall control on the actions of the police officers in every case where it has taken cognizance.”

6. The Supreme Court in the said judgment, taking into account that there was no prima facie defense taken, the State or its Officers had taken due care and caution to protect the property observed that the Jurisdictional Magistrate, may in appropriate case, where ends of justice so require order payment of the value of the property.

7. It is also seen that in another judgment, in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2002) 10 SCC 287, the Supreme Court relying upon the judgment in the case of Smt. Basava Kom Dyamogouda Patil (supra) passed various directions as to how the Jurisdictional Magistrate should exercise the powers under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

8. In the instant, the truck bearing Registration No.AS25-CC-7741 was seized on 10.02.2022 at 4.30. P.M., by the Police Officials of the North Guwahati Police Outpost, which falls under the Changsari Police Station in connection with Changsari Police Station Case No.77/2022 and thereupon, while in the custody of the North Guwahati Police Outpost, the said vehicle caught fire resulting in total damage to the vehicle. The petitioner, thereupon had sought for compensation from the concerned respondent authorities, and the same having not been granted, the petitioner has approached this Court.

9. It is the opinion of this Court that taking into account the scope of Section 451 of the Code of 1973, and the pari materia provisions of Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, are adequate statutory remedies available to the petitioner, and more particularly, in view of the judgments in the case of Smt. Basava Kom Dyamogouda Patil (supra) and Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra), this Court ought not to entertain the instant writ petition, rather, the petitioner should be relegated to approach the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate.

10. Accordingly the writ petition, therefore, stands disposed of with the following observations and directions:

(i) . Taking into account that the petitioner has statutory remedies available under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C/Section 497 of the BNSS, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition under 226 of the Constitution.

(ii) . The dismissal of the instant writ petition on the ground of being not entertained shall not prejudice or preclude the petitioner to approach the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C./ 497 of the BNSS, if so advised.

(iii) . It is further observed that in the circumstance the petitioner approaches, the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate shall duly consider the case of the petitioner keeping in mind the law as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Basava Kom Dyamogouda Patil (supra) as well as Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra).

JUDGE Comparing Assistant