AJAY CHAUDHARY @ AJAY KUMAR CHAUDHARY, S/O SRI KAPILDEO CHUDHARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner was driving one Mahindra Swaraj Jeep No. BR 9C/2302 and he was carrying passengers including one Arum Kumar Singh, Accountant, S.B.I. Lakho Branch and in course of that the said Arun Kumar Singh was overpowered and abducted. Regarding that occurrence of kidnapping Sahebpur Kamal P.S. Case No. 23 of 2004 under Sections 364 and 120B of I.P.C. was longed on the statement of informant Niranjan Pd. Singh, the brother of victim Arun Kumar Singh. The petitioner was made an accused in the case. The police seized the said Mahindra Swaraj Jeep on the allegation that the vehicle was used in the commission of the crime.

(2.) THE petitioner had purchased the vehicle on hire purchase agreement for a price of Rs. 5,40,000 / - and cash payment of Rs. 1,33,740/ - was paid and the remaining amount was to be paid in 36 installments each installment being of Rs. 11,960/ - but no installment had been paid to the financer M/s Shrachi Securities Ltd., the respondent No. 6. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for compensation for the damage caused to the vehicle during its seizure and custody with the police. The petitioner 'scase is that while the seized jeep was in custody of police the concerned Officer -in -Charge of the police station i.e., respondent No. 4 Kamlesh Prasad Sharma was using the vehicle by getting it unauthorisedly plied by a private driver for hire and in course of that the vehicle dashed against a tree and it was badly damaged. The petitioner 'scase is also that he approached the police authorities and made complaint about the damage of the vehicle as a result of which matter was examined by the police officials and they found that the Officer -in -Charge i.e., respondent No. 4 had in fact caused damage to the vehicle due to its regular unauthorized plying on hire for unlawful gain. The petitioner says that the higher police officials had taken departmental action against respondent No. 4 for such unauthorized activity. On these grounds the petitioner has claimed for compensation due to the damage caused to the vehicle. Petitioner says that since he is the owner of the vehicle and the vehicle was seized from his possession he is entitled for compensation for the damage caused to the vehicle.

(3.) THE State respondents have filed their counter affidavits wherein it is accepted that the respondent No. 4 was found guilty for the misuse of the vehicle for which departmental action was taken against him. Annexure -C to the counter affidavit is the order of the Superintendent of Police, Begusarai, passed in a departmental proceeding against respondent No. 4 awarding him punishment of stoppage of two increments.