Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/4317/2024 of VIRENDRAPAL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT INDOREBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMAON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 4317 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
VIRENDRAPAL S/O SALIGRAMPAL, AGED ABOUT 70YEARS, R/O. 2/5, SOUTHTUKOGANJ INDORE (MADHYAPRADESH)
(BY SHRI SHISH JOSHI - ADVOCATE)
.....APPLICANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSEOFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION SONKACHH,DISTRICT DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI ANENDRA SINGH PARIHAR - P.L. FOR STATE)
.....RESPONDENTS
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
1. Heard.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
2. By this petition, under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C the petitioner has challenged the order dated 2/3/2023 passed by the trial Court whereby hisprayer for return of the F.D. to him has been rejected.
3. The record indicates that earlier a Sessions Trial No.140/2023 wasdecided by judgment dated 09.09.2004 the Court of Additional Sessions JudgeSonkatch District Dewas (State of M.P. V/s. Mahendra Singh Tomar & Others)and the accused in that case namely Mahendra Singh and Kalu were acquittedand accused Ravi and Pintu were declared as absconding. No appeal against the said judgment has been preferred by the State of M.P.. During the trial avehicle was seized. After the judgment dated 9/9/2004 the petitioner preferredCriminal Revision No.620 of 2008 before this Court for release of the vehicle tohim which was allowed and the vehicle was directed to be released in favour ofthe petitioner subject to his furnishing a fixed deposit in the sum of Rs.25,000/-before the trial Court which he did.
4. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application before the trial Court forrelease of the F.D. to him along with interest accrued thereon which has beenrejected by the trial Court by the impugned order on the ground that the matteris still pending.
5. The original judgment of the trial Court shows that the incident is ofthe year 2002. The judgment was passed in year 2004 declaring two of theaccused as absconding. Almost 20 years have elapsed since then and thoseaccused are still stated to be absconding due to which the trial Court hasrecorded the finding that the matter is pending. For the failure on the part of theprosecution agency in arresting the absconding accused, the petitioner cannotbe penalized. His F.D. cannot be retained in perpetuating even though interestthereupon is accruing. In the available facts and circumstances of the case, itwould be just and proper to release the F.D. in favour of the petitioner.
6. As a result, the impugned order dated 2/3/2023 passed by the trial Court is set aside and the application preferred by the petitioner for release ofthe F.D. along with interest to him stands allowed.
7. The petition stands allowed and disposed off.
C.c. as per rules.
(PRANAY VERMA)JUDGE