Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:30668 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37493 of 2023 Applicant :- Dachfenster Media Pvt. Ltd. Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Vijay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.K. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This Court on 23.11.2023 required the learned AGA to file response. 3. Learned AGA has made a statement at bar that the counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party no. 1 sworn by Sudhakar Singh aged about 34 son of Shri Gyan Singh, posted as Sub-Inspector, Police Station- Sector-63, Gautam Budh Nagar on 06.02.2024, however, the same is not on record. 4. This Court on 12.09.2024 and 27.02.2025 required the office to trace the counter affidavit and place it on record. 5. There is an office report dated 27.02.2025 and 03.03.2025 that the counter affidavit is not available in the record. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a counter affidavit has been served upon him and he is in possession of the same. 7. According to learned AGA, counter affidavit is available in his record. Keeping the aforesaid facts in background, the Court required Shri S.K. Singh, learned AGA to give a self-attested copy of the counter affidavit which was also verified by the Shri Vijay Pratap Singh and according to him, it is the same what he has received. 8. In the interest of justice, the counter affidavit is taken on record and marked as Appendix-A. 9. This application under Section 482 Cr.PC. has been filed by the applicant to quash the order dated 22.08.2023 as well as entire proceedings of case crime No. 546 of 2020, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 406, 411, 120-B IPC Police Station- Phase 3, District Gautam Budh Nagar, pending before the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fast Track Court/ Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Gautam Budh Nagar. 10. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the vehicle in question being a four wheeler having registration No. UP 16 CJ 6962 is in the ownership of the applicant sharing, as he seeks to rely upon Annexure- 3 at page 31, reference whereof has been made in para no. 13 being the registration certificate of the said vehicle showing the fact that the applicant is the owner of the said four wheeler. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as many as 8 criminal cases stood lodged which are being give below: "a) Case Crime no.546 of 2020, under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 IPC, First Information Report dated 5.8.2020 lodged by Sri Krishna Yadav; b) Case Crime No.562 of 2020, under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC, First Information Report dated 11.8.2020 lodged by Sri Vijay Kumar Khanna; c) Case Crime No.563 of 2020, under Sections 420, 406, 506 IPC, First Information Report dated 12.8.2020 lodged by Sri Om Prakash; d) Case Crime No.564 of 2020, under Sections 420, 406, 506 IPC, First Information Report dated 12.8.2020 lodged by Sri Bhupendra Singh; e) Case Crime No.565 of 2020, under Sections 420, 406 IPC, First Information Report dated 12.8.2020 lodged by Arvinder Singh Bajwa; f) Case Crime No.570 of 2020, under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC, First Information Report dated 12.8.2020 lodged by Sri Mahendra Singh Rana; g) Case Crime No.571 of 2020, under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 IPC, First Information Report dated 12.8.2020 lodged by Sri Anil Kishor Negi; and h) Case Crime No.572 of 2020, under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 IPC, First Information Report dated 12.8.2020 lodged by Sri Pradeep Kumar Rai." 11. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that but none of the said cases were against the applicant, however, one of his representative being Suneel Kumar, despite being having not arrayed as an accused there being single any allegation was got entangled in the criminal case so sought to be instituted referable to the fraud committed by the name of M/s Westland Trade Private Limited (Hyper Supermarket). Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the representative of the applicant namely, Suneel Kumar was arrested in the proceedings in case No. 0546 of 2020 under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 409, 411, 120-B IPC and he was enlarged on bail by this Court on 07.04.2022 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13304 of 2022 and further even, proceedings under Gangsters Act was also sought to be inflicted in case crime No.0966 of 2020 under Section 2/3 of the Act in which Suneel Kumar was enlarged on bail on 20.05.2022 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18906 of 2022. Learned counsel for the applicant further submit that an application seeking release of the vehicle was preferred on 06.07.2023 which was rejected by the court below on 22.08.2023. Learned counsel for the applicant thus submits that the vehicle is detained since the year 2020, the reference was made in para 18, he submits that the applicant being the owner of the vehicle is entitled to custody of the sale and the conditions be imposed for presentation of the same or otherwise in view of the judgment in the case of Sunder Bhai Abmba Lal Desari v. State of Gujarat; 2002 Supp(3) SCR 39. 12. Learned AGA opposes the said prayer, however, he could not dispute the fact that the applicant is the owner of the said vehicle in question and the vehicle is being detained since 2020. He further submits that in case vehicle is released then the applicant be directed to fill bond in that regard and be agreeable and ready to produce the vehicle in question whenever the trial court would ask and the applicant should also undertake that it will not dispose of vehicle during the pendency of the trial and without permission of the Court and will not change the basic character of the vehicle also. 13. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 14. Since it is not in dispute that the applicant is the registered owner of the vehicle and the vehicle has been detained since 2020 approximately more than 4 years have passed and the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunder Bhai Abmba Lal Desari (supra) has already observed, if the vehicle is lying at police station for long period then it should be released in favour of the registered owner as no fruitful purpose would be served to keep such vehicle at police station. 15. As the applicant is the registered owner of the vehicle and no other claimant of the vehicle has come forward, therefore, the impugned order dated 20.08.2023 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) FTC/ Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budha Nagar is quashed and the vehicle in question Mercedes Registration No. UP 16 CJ 6962 is hereby released in favor of the applicant with two sureties subject to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions: 1) Applicant shall not dispose of the vehicle in question during pendency of the trial. 2) Whenever court pass any order with regard to the vehicle in question then applicant shall comply the order passed by the court below. 3) The applicant shall not change the basic character of the vehicle. 16. Accordingly, the instant application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. stands allowed. Order Date :- 4.3.2025 A. Prajapati Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad