Rachna Chauhan vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another

N.S. Dhanik, J

Applicant has preferred this Criminal Miscellaneous Application, under Section 482 CrPC, to quash the order dated 1.7.2017 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur in Criminal Case No. 3326/2017 and the order dated 11.12.2018 passed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Revision No. 174/2018.

The background facts of the case are that the husband of the applicant was the Paishkar (Reader) of the SDM, Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar. On 2.12.2016, one Satpal Singh lodged an FIR under Section 409 IPC against unknown persons stating that he took charge as Reader in the office of SDM, Jaspur on 2.12.2016 but all the files of the office were not handed over to him and many files pertaining to the year 2008-09 to 2011-12 were missing and he requested that action be taken against the Reader responsible for the same. Applicant's husband was wanted by the police and when he did not surrender, the police raided his house on 3.6.2017 and seized/recovered many files and articles like ornaments, Kisan Vikas Patra, sale deeds, Fixed Deposit Receipts and Cash amounting to rupees eighty thousand and also arrested the applicant's husband on the same day. Subsequently, the applicant moved an application before the Court below stating that the recovered articles like ornaments, Kisan Vikas Patra, sale deeds, Fixed Deposit Receipts and Cash amounting to rupees eighty thousand belong to her and prayed that the same be released in her favour. The Court below rejected the said application vide the impugned order dated 1.7.2017, which was challenged by the applicant in revision. The revisional court vide impugned order dated 11.12.2018 dismissed the revision of the applicant and affirmed the order dated 1.7.2017. Aggrieved, the applicant has filed this criminal miscellaneous application.

State has filed counter affidavit, wherein it has been stated that as many as four cases are going on against the husband of the applicant including the one under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Many official files have been recovered from the house of applicant's husband. Details of files recovered from the house of applicant are enclosed as Annexure 1 to the counter affidavit and the chart showing cases registered against the applicant's husband is enclosed as Annexure 2 to the counter affidavit.

Learned Counsel for the applicant contended that the articles sought to be released are not the case properties; applicant is the owner of the ornaments, Kisan Vikas Patra, Fixed Deposit Receipts, sale deeds and the cash recovered by the police from her house and she is entitled to get back the same. Hence, the Courts below erred in rejecting the release application of the applicant.

Learned State Counsel refuted the contentions urged on behalf of the applicant. He submitted that it is a case of disproportionate assets; recovery is huge; a vigilance enquiry is also going on against the applicant's husband and, in these circumstances, it would not be proper to release the above articles in favour of the applicant.

The Courts below have rejected the release application of the applicant on the ground that investigation against the applicant's husband in many cases including the disproportionate assets case is going on; applicant has not disclosed any source of her income and it is also not the case of the applicant those articles are perishable items.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and on perusing the materials on record, I find no infirmity in the impugned orders and there is no reason or ground to interfere with the same. Indisputably, four FIRs have been registered against the applicant's husband; huge recovery of office files, ornaments, property papers, deposits, etc. have been made from the house of applicant's husband; applicant failed to show her independent source of income; case relates to NH-74 scam; case of disproportionate assets is also going on against the applicant's husband and the vigilance enquiry is also pending against him.

In the above view of the matter, I do not find any error much less any error of law in passing the impugned orders. Consequently, this criminal miscellaneous application is dismissed.