RUKMINI PRAVA MOHANTY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. B. P. Mohanty, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Learned Counsel for the State. It appears that an application u/s 457, Cr.P.C. was filed by the Petitioner and the same was registered as Misc.Case No.12 of 2009 in G.R. Case No.2763 of 2007 by the Learned SDJM, Bhubaneswar. By Order Dated 12.01.2009 direction was issued to the I.I.C., Saheed Nagar P.S. to release the vehicle in favour of the Petitioner. Since the police did not release the vehicle in the absence of the documents of Registration, the Petitioner filed CMC No.24 of 2009 before the SDJM praying for direction to release the seized R.C. Book of the vehicle in question in favour of the Petitioner.

(2.) THIS petition is taken up on 17.01.2009 and the Learned SDJM while taking note of the earlier direction passed by him in Misc. Case No.12 of 2009 for release of the vehicle, found that the R.C. Book of the vehicle stood in the name of Narendra Ch. Nayak and accordingly directed issue of notice to the registered owner and a further direction was issued to the I.I.C., Saheed Nagar P.S. not to release the vehicle in favour of the Petitioner. This latter part of the Order Dated 17.01.2009 is the subject matter of challenge.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on a Judgment of this Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Jena v. The State of Orissa and Anr., reported in (1992) 5 OCR 402, wherein this Court came to hold that an order passed u/s 457, Cr.P.C. is not an interim order but a final order and if any person was aggrieved by the same he/she had a right to challenge the same before any higher forum or he may approach the Civil Court for redressal of his grievance, but once an order u/s 457 of the Code is passed, rightly or wrongly, the same is final, so far as, the return of the seized property under the code is concerned and the Magistrate becomes functus officio.