Posted On by &filed under Delhi High Court, High Court.

Delhi High Court
Ramesh Lal Arora vs Smt. Kavita Arora & Another on 22 August, 2000
Author: R Sodhi
Bench: R Sodhi


R.S. Sodhi, J.

1. Admit.

307/498-A/406 IPC released the car, whose registered owner was Shri Ramesh Arora, to his wife Ms. Kavita Arora, on her furnishing superdari of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) subject to the condition that the car would be produced in the Court as and when required. She was further directed to keep the car in proper and safe custody.

66 of the Delhi Police Act and remained unclaimed property, therefore, could not be handed over to Ms. Kavita Arora, in the proceedings before the Magistrate under Sections 307/498-A/406 IPC. He further submits that the only procedure that could be adopted in cases of property taken possession of under Section 66 of the Delhi Police Act is by dealing with it in accordance with Section 67 thereof. The Magistrate by handingover the car to his wife has exceeded his jurisdiction. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that this vehicle was purchased out of the fund of istridhan and, therefore, became property claimable by her as istridhan under Section 406 IPC. I have asked the Public Prosecutor to show me as to when this car was taken into possession in FIR No. 254/95 under Section 498-A/406 IPC. No document is forthcoming to show that the car at any point of time became case property in FIR No. 254/95. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the matter has to be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the Delhi Police Act. Learned counsel also points out that under the Motor Vehicles Act, it is mandatory that the vehicle so registered remains in the custody of the registered owner, who may at will allow a person with a valid licence to ply the same. But the motor vehicle cannot be handed over on superdari to a person, who is not the registered owner since it would violate the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.

66 of the Delhi Police Act or is a case property in FIR No. 254/95 and then deal with the case accordingly. It will be open to the petitioner as well as the respondents to place their case before the Metropolitan Magistrate afresh.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

107 queries in 0.233 seconds.