Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ruchi Agarwal @ Guddi @ Renu on 25 March, 2025
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Anand Pathak, Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7062
1 WA-1431-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 25 th OF MARCH, 2025
WRIT APPEAL No. 1431 of 2022
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
RUCHI AGARWAL @ GUDDI @ RENU AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri A.K. Nirankari - Govt. Advocate for the appellants/State.
Shri R.K. Soni - Advocate for the respondents.
ORDER
Per: Justice Hirdesh;
1.The present appeal under Section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is preferred by the appellant taking exception to the order dated 03.09.2022 passed in Writ Petition No. 5466 of 2017, whereby Writ Petition preferred by respondents (herein) was disposed o f interalia with direction to respondent No. 1 (therein) to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 40,00,000/- to the respondents (herein)
2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that police have seized gold and silver ornaments, from accused persons with regard to dacoity, belonging to petitioners which were alleged to be valued at Rs. 80,00,000/- which were kept in malkhana of the Court below, however, later on it was found that ornaments were lost from the Treasury, in regard to which FIR was lodged against erring persons.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner/appellant preferred the petition under Article 226 of Constitution before writ Court interalia on the ground that due to loss of gold Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 4/1/2025 11:57:28 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7062 2 WA-1431-2022 and sliver ornaments from the custody of the Court as found proved in enqury by the District Judge, Gwalior, petitioners are entitled to get compensation of Rs. 80 Lacs.
4. The present appeal has been filed on the grounds that FIR has been registered in respect of loss of certain ornaments from the malkhana of the Court said to have valued at Rs. 80 Lacs does not mean that the State Government has admitted the cost of ornaments, therefore, the finding arrived at by the learned Single Bench enabling it to direct the respondent No. 1 (therein) to make payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 80 Lacs is erroneous and learned writ Court also lost sight of the matter that Crime No. 290/2017 has already been registered against the culprits and unless the criminal case is not finally adjudicated, the question of payment of compensation does not arise during pendency of such criminal case and that the various proceedings by the respondents herein were not disclosed in the writ petition, therefore, learned writ court erred in passing the impugned order and did not consider the case in correct perspective which is liable to be set aside.
5. The case in hand is with regard to dacoity which took place in the year 1988 in which ornaments of gold and silver were looted which were later on recovered from accused and were kept in the custody of Court. However, later one it was found that the ornaments were lost from malkhana of the Court which was alleged to have valued at Rs. 80 Lacs, however, such valuation was not admitted by the State Government and that Crime No. 290/2017 has already been registered against the culprits and such criminal case is not finally adjudicated. On earlier date of hearing i.e. on 17.5.2024, this Court directed the State counsel to carry out assessment with regard to valuation of the ornaments mentioned in list available in case diary of Crime No. 177/1988 and 178/1988, now part of Crime No. 290/2017, which was not disputed by respondent's counsel, and in compliance of such direction, appellants/ State Counsel got its valuation done by Vasoomal Ram Chand Jewellers and details of valuation of Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 4/1/2025 11:57:28 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7062 3 WA-1431-2022 the ornaments is annexed as Annexure-A and a copy describing number, types and quantity of ornaments is enclosed as Annexure-B.
6. After hearing counsel of both the parties and perusal of the documents, evaluating the cost of the ornaments, annexed with application I.A. No. 10733/2024, as per direction of this Court, valuation of the ornaments is found to be Rs. 38,10,844/- and the State is ready to give this amount and as learned counsel for respondents agreed on the point of assessment done by the jeweler, which is annexed as Annexures
-A and B along with the application (I.A. No. 10733/2024), in the interest of justice and as submitted by Counsel for respondents that this matter is near about 36 years old pending since 1988, so, some interest must be awarded to them, the State is directed to give Rs. 40,00,000/- as lump sum amount including compensation, to the respondents within three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order/judgment. Now nothing remains to be paid to respondents.
7. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands disposed of.
8. Cc as per rules.
(ANAND PATHAK) (HIRDESH)
JUDGE JUDGE
ar
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN
Signing time: 4/1/2025
11:57:28 AM