HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 362/2020 Hakamdeen S/o Shri Cahat Khan, Resident of Village Dadha, Police Station Udoyg Nagar, District Alwar (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through PP 2. Asgar S/o Shri Ibrahim, Resident of Village Mojpur, Laxmangarh, District Alwar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms.Anisha Yadav & Mr.Chitransh Saxena For Respondent(s) : Mr.Jitendra Singh Rathore, PP with Ms.Neha Goyal JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 22/05/2026 1. The instant misc. petition is listed before this Court in pursuance of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Kumar and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan (Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 773/2026, decided on 15.01.2026), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that in various matters, interim orders have been passed in criminal revision petitions and petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as a result of which trial relating to serious offences such as murder, rape, dacoity, dowry death, etc., could not proceed and remained stalled/held up due to the passage of considerable time. 2. Directions have been issued to this Court and other High Courts to take up such like matters which are pending since long, on priority and decide the same expeditiously without deferring the hearings to subsequent dates. (2 of 3) [CRLMP-362/2020] 3. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 03.01.2020 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Alwar in Sessions Case No.61/2018, by which the application submitted by the petitioner for getting the supurdagi of the subject vehicle, i.e., farmtrac tractor has been rejected and the application submitted by the respondent has been allowed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the registered owner of the subject vehicle, which was seized in the impugned F.I.R. No.221/2018 registered with Udhyog Nagar, Alwar for the offence punishable under Sections 498A & 304B IPC. Counsel further submits that an application was submitted by the petitioner before the Court below for obtaining the custody of the vehicle on supurdagi, hence, the petitioner is the registered owner, but the application submitted by the petitioner was rejected and the application submitted by the father of the deceased has been accepted on the count that the vehicle in question falls within the purview of ‘stree dhan’ of the deceased and the father of the deceased is entitled to get custody of the same. Counsel submits that there is no such evidence available on record to record such finding at the preliminary stage, hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 5. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent- complainant in spite of service. 6. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 7. Perusal of the record indicates that the vehicle in question has been seized by the Police in connection with the F.I.R. (3 of 3) [CRLMP-362/2020] No.221/2018 registered at the Police Station Udhyog Nagar, District Alwar for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A & 304-B IPC. Two rival applications were submitted by the petitioner as well as by the respondent-complainant for getting the aforesaid vehicle on supurdagi, the petitioner is claiming himself as the registered owner of the subject vehicle while the respondent- complainant is claiming himself as entitled to get the supurdagi on the count that the articles including the subject vehicle was given by him to the petitioner and his son as stree dhan at the time of solemnization of the marriage of his daughter with the son of the petitioner. 8. On this count alone, the Trial Court formed an opinion that the subject vehicle falls within the purview of ‘stree dhan’ of the deceased and the application submitted by the respondent No.2 was allowed vide impugned order and more than six years have passed thereafter. 9. In the considered opinion of this Court, the matter is still at the trial stage, the final verdict is yet to come, hence, under these circumstances, the Court is of the considered opinion that the Trial Judge would pass appropriate final orders under Section 452 Cr.P.C. at the time of conclusion of the trial with regard to entitlement of custody of the subject vehicle on the basis of the evidence led by both the sides. 10. With the aforesaid observation, the instant criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma/2