Yogita Jain vs State of Madhya Pradesh

(1) The applicant has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for brevity the Cr.P.C.) for quashment of order dated 30/05/2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore in Crime No. 124/2018 registered at Police-Station-Palasiya, Indore, whereby the application filed by the applicant under Section 451/457 of Cr.P.C. for grant of interim custody of the seized amount has been rejected.

(2) Brief facts of the case are that on the complaint made by Vijay Badjatya, the employee of the applicant, FIR bearing Crime No. 124/2018 has been registered against the respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 381 of the IPC regarding theft of Rs. 10.0 Lacs from the house of present applicant, who was working as domestic helper in the house of present applicant. After lodging the FIR, when the applicant came to her house, on searching she came to know to the extent that there was a theft of approximately Rs. 38.0 Lacs. The aforesaid amount has been seized from the possession of the respondent No.2. Thereafter the applicant filed an application under Section 451/457 of Cr.P.C. for grant of interim custody of  the aforesaid amount, which was dismissed by the impugned order stating that the applicant has not filed any documents regarding the source of aforesaid amount, therefore, in this regard the police informed the Income Tax Department. This order is subject matter of challenge before this Court.

(3). Learned counsel for the applicant has advanced a singular contention that the FIR was lodged by the employee of the applicant and when she came to her house then on searching it was found that there was a theft of Rs. 38.0 Lacs. The police recorded her supplementary statement, in which she disclosed the said facts and the aforesaid amount has been seized from the possession of respondent No.2, who was working as domestic helper in her house and he has not explained that from where he got this huge amount, therefore, it is clear that respondent No.2 has stolen this amount from the house of the applicant. Respondent is not making any claim on this seized amount, thus, the learned trial Court has committed grave error in rejecting the application filed by the applicant. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

(4) On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application by contending that the initially the FIR was lodged regarding the theft of Rs. 10.0 Lacs Rupees and the applicant has not filed any documents regarding the source of aforesaid amount, therefore, the trial Court has rightly rejected the application and no interference is called for by this Court.

(5). Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(6) From the perusal of the record it transpires that at the time of alleged incident, the respondent No.2 was working as domestic helper in the house of applicant and he has been unable to disclosed that from where he got such a huge amount. The respondent No.2 is also not making any claim on the siezed amount. In the case of Sunderbai Ambalal Desai V. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 290, the Apex Court held that whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep the seized property at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the seized amount, if required at any point of time.

(7) It is not disputed that the respondent No.2 was working as domestic helper in the house of present applicant and a complaint was made by Vijay Badjatya regarding the theft of Rs.10.0 Lacs Rupees from the house of applicant. On the basis of that FIR bearing Crime No. 124/2018 for the offence under Section 381 of the IPC was registered against the respondent No.2. Police apprehended the respondent No.2 and on the basis of his disclosure statement recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, police recovered Rs.38.0 lacs rupees. Thereafter, police recorded supplementary statement of the present applicant, in which she disclosed that on searching, she came to know that actual Rs.38.0 lacs has been stolen from her house.

(8). Having regard to the above legal position and facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the fact that seized amount has been stolen from the house of the applicant and except the applicant no one is making claim on the seized amount, which is unidentifiable in nature and it is not required for DOC identification. Therefore, the seized amount should be handed over to the applicant.

(9). In view of the discussions made here-in-above, present petition filed under Section 482 is allowed and impugned order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore in Crime No. 124/2018 registered at Police-station-Palasiya, Indore is hereby set- aside. It is directed that the seized amount of Rs.38.0 Lacs be handed over to the applicant on the following terms and conditions :-

(i). The applicant shall furnish Supurdnama to the sum of Rs.50,00,000/- and the surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for releasing the amount in question.

(ii) The applicant will produce the seized amount before the trial Court as and when required by the trial Court.

(iii) In case, in the opinion of the court the applicant does not produce the seized amount in the condition in which it was given in her possession, then applicant shall pay the amount which would be determined by the court.

With the aforesaid directions, this petition stands disposed of.

Certified copy as per rules.