Allahabad High Court

MANOJ KUMAR ALIAS MANOJ KUMAR YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

Decided: 23 February 2026
Bench: ABDUL SHAHID

Holding

The order releasing the vehicle to the registered owner was lawful and the magistrate had jurisdiction; the revision is dismissed.

Summary

Manoj Kumar filed a criminal revision challenging the order of the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, which released a seized vehicle (UP-17 AT-6415) to the registered owner, Pashupati Shah, under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicle Act. The revisionist argued that the magistrate lacked jurisdiction and that he, having paid part of the purchase price, was entitled to ownership. The court examined the statutory provision and precedent that only the transport authority or an officer authorized by the State Government may release a vehicle seized under Section 207, and that release must be to the registered owner. The magistrate had correctly identified the registered owner based on documents and released the vehicle accordingly. The revisionist failed to produce any proof of ownership or a valid transfer of title. The court held there was no illegality in the magistrate’s order and dismissed the revision.

Issues considered

Whether the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate has jurisdiction to release a vehicle seized under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicle Act.
Whether the vehicle must be released only to the registered owner or a person with a valid authority.
Whether the revisionist, despite partial payment, has any legal right to claim ownership of the vehicle.

Legislation cited

Motor Vehicle Act — s. 207

Subjects

Motor Vehicle Act
Section 207
vehicle seizure
jurisdiction
criminal revision
ownership dispute
release of seized vehicle

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2491 of 2025

Manoj Kumar Alias Manoj Kumar Yadav
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Om Prakash Dixit, Vikas Upadhyay
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Akhilesh Kumar, G.A.

Court No. - 87
HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State
and the learned counsel for the opposite parties.

2. The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the impugned
judgment and order dated 3.5.2025, passed by the learned Special Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi in Case No. 18370 of 2025 (State Vs.
Pashupati Shah), under Section 207 of Motor Vehicle Act, Police Station
Rohaniya, District Varanasi.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has submitted that the
learned Magistrate did not have jurisdiction, hence the impugned order
dated 3.5.2025 is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel has relied on the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal
Desai Vs. State of Gujarat (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) 2745 of 2002.
He has further relied on the law laid down by this Court in Arvind
Kumar Vs. State of U.P. 2014 (2) JIC 881 to contend that where a
vehicle is seized by Transport Authority under Section 207 of the Motor
Vehicle Act, only transport authority or any Officer authorized by the
State Government in this behalf has power to release the vehicle.

4. Learned trial court has passed the order dated 3.5.2025 after
consideration of law held in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of
Gujarat; 2003 (46) ACC 233, wherein it has been held that said vehicle
has to be released in favour of the registered owner and the registered
owner was found by the learned trial court on the basis of document,
CRLR No. 2491 of 2025
2

Pashupati Shah (opposite party no.2).

5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party no.3-Deepak
Kumar, who has filed release application as power of attorney holder of
registered owner/opposite party no.2, Pashupati Shah. Thereafter, the
learned trial court had released the said vehicle in favour of the registered
owner. In paragraph nos. 4 and 5 of the said counter affidavit, the
opposite party no.3 has specifically deposed that the aforesaid vehicle in
question is belongs to opposite party no.2 and admittedly the opposite
party no.2 Pashupati Shah is the owner of the vehicle in question till yet,
having legal authorization as registration of vehicle, insurance of vehicle,
fitness of vehicle etc. are still in his name. It is further made clear that it is
true that the Pashupathi Shah/opposite party no.2 sold the aforesaid
vehicle in question in favour of Deepak Kumar/opposite party no. 3 on
16.9.2021 in consideration of Rs. 21,00,000/ and due to pendency of loan
amount as well as Challan and taxes of the vehicle in question, the
registration certificate was not transferred in favour of Deepak
Kumar/opposite party no.3, but the vehicle in question was handed over
to the opposite party no.3 by the opposite party no.2 and thereafter a
proposal was made by one Aslam Qureshi to the opposite party no.3 for
purchase the aforesaid vehicle in question and it was done in the tune of
Rs. 15,25,000/, but Aslam Qureshi failed to pay the aforesaid
consideration amount to the Deepak Kumar/opposite party no.3 and then
a proposal for purchase of aforesaid vehicle in question was made by the
present revisionist to the opposite party no.3 and both were agreed in the
tune of Rs. 14,00,000/- and out of which only Rs. 1,00,000/ was handed
over by the present revisionist to the Deepak Kumar/opposite party no.3
and issued a cheque No. 482241, amounting to Rs. 13,00,000/- dated
25.12.2024 and on the assurance and earnest amount of Rs. 1,00,000/, the
vehicle in question was handed over to the revisionist by the opposite
party no.3, but when the cheque amount was not credited in the favour of
opposite party no.3, the aforesaid alleged notary agreement have no force
and as above the alleged notary sale agreement dated 29.9.2023 is no
weight as per law. Once the consideration amount/sale price was not
credited in the account of opposite party no.3, the opposite party no.3
made several request to the revisionist to pay the amount in question as
CRLR No. 2491 of 2025
3

sale price, but revisionist failed to comply the same and as same
revisionist has no legal right on the aforesaid vehicle in question in any
manner.

6. It is also stated in the counter affidavit in paragraph no. 9 that once the
cheque of considerable amount of Rs. 13 lacs is remain for transfer of
vehicle in question till yet, then how the revisionist claim his ownership
upon the aforesaid vehicle in question. The revisionist due to non
payment of agreed sale price, he has no power to claim his ownership on
the vehicle in question. It is further deposed in the counter affidavit that
after due verification of the evidences available on record, the learned
Magistrate released the vehicle in question in favour of opposite party
no.2, who is having legal ownership on the aforesaid vehicle in question
and on his undertaking the aforesaid vehicle in question was released in
his favour that if required he will produce the vehicle in question before
the Court and regarding the aforesaid release the learned Magistrate call
the inquiry report from the concerned police station, upon which the
inquiry was made and detail report was submitted by the concerned
officer of Police Station Rohaniya, Commissionerate, Varanasi and same
has been placed before the learned Magistrate.

7. The vehicle in question had been released in favour of the registered
owner of the vehicle i.e. opposite party no.2. The revisionist has failed to
submit any specific reply and he has not produced any document of his
ownership by way of competent authority about his ownership regarding
said vehicle in question, UP-17 AT-6415. The revisionist has failed to
produce his locus for release of the said vehicle in his favour.

8. In view thereof, there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned
order dated 3.5.2025. The revision is liable to be dismissed and it is
dismissed.

(Abdul Shahid,J.)
February 24, 2026
sfa/

Digitally signed by :-
SYED FAHEEM AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…