CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Abid Khan vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 24 September 2021 · Citation: (2021) 09 SHI CK 0069

HON’BLE JUDGES
Anoop Chitkara, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 399
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (Main) No. 359 Of 2021
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

17 paragraphs · 357 words

Anoop Chitkara, J

This petition coming on for hearing this day, the Court passed the following:

FIR No.

Dated

Police Station

Sections

28/2021

12.3.2021

Puruwala, District Sirmaur

379 IPC & 41-42 of Indian Forest Act

1.

Seeking a direction to the Divisional Forest Officer-second respondent, to release the vehicle seized in the FIR captioned above, the petitioner has come up before this Court on the ground that he is entitled to release of the vehicle in his favour.

2.

The respondents has filed reply and paragraph 3 of the preliminary submissions reads as follows:

"3. That being feeling disagreed and unsatisfied ordered dated 12.05.2021 passed by the Ld. ACJM Court No.1 Paonta Sahib is assail by the replying respondent No.2 by filing the revision under Section 399 CrPC before the Hon'ble Session Court Distt. Sirmour H.P. at Nahan vide case No.761/2021 which is pending for disposal and is fixed for 26.10.2021 in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge Court No.2 at Nahan Distt. Sirmour H.P. The present Cr.MMO No.359/2021 is premature and not maintainable."

3.

A perusal of the reply reveals that the State has challenged the order passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, on which basis the petitioner has come up before this Court. Instead of adjudicating this matter in this Court, it would be appropriate for the petitioner to pursue the matter before learned Sessions Judge/Additional Sessions Judge so that the concerned Court can decide the matter pending before it as early as possible.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the there is no Additional Sessions Judge posted at Nahan. Given above, this Court requests learned Sessions Judge to take up the matter and decide it by 8th October, 2021, but, in any condition, not later than 30th October, 2021. Parties are also directed not to seek adjournment.

5.

With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands closed, so also the pending application(s), if any. Regarding the alternative prayer of the petitioner, it is open for him to file separate petition.

6.

Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file application either before DFO or before CJM/Sessions Court/high Court, where he thinks appropriate.