Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt.Ruchi Agarwal @ Guddi @ Renu vs State Of M.P. on 18 March, 2016
(Smt. Ruchi Agrawal & Ors. vs. State of M.P. & Ors.)
1 M.Cr.C. No. 10372/2013
18.03.2016
Shri R.K. Soni, counsel for the applicants.
Shri B.K. Sharma, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent No. 1-State.
Shri Sarvesh Sharma,counsel for the respondent No. 2.
Heard on I.A No. 7559/2015, an application for referring the matter for mediation between the parties.
The present matter is relating to interim custody of various ornaments, etc. of the deceased which are kept in the treasury due to pendency of S.T. No. 178/89 & 170/89 in which one of the accused is absconding and, therefore, on an application of the applicants, the trial court had directed that since the applicants and respondent No. 2 have equal share on the property of the deceased, therefore, joint interim custody bond and surety bond be filed and then the articles which are deposited in the treasury may be temporarily given to the applicants and respondent No. 2.
In the present matter, which is a criminal case, internal dispute of the applicants and respondent No. 2 cannot be decided. For that dispute it is for the respondent No. 2 to get the succession certificate from the competent succession court if his separate share is not declared and therefore, the matter cannot be sent for mediation or resolution between the parties. It is for the competent succession court to decide the right of the respondent No. 2 alone, hence, I.A No. 7559/2015 is hereby dismissed. (Smt. Ruchi Agrawal & Ors. vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) 2 M.Cr.C. No. 10372/2013 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Applicants have filed the present petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. to modify the order dated 19/11/2013 passed by the trial court relating to interim custody of various articles kept in the treasury and it is prayed that liability of furnishing a joint interim custody bond should be deleted and the applicants shall be permitted to file the interim custody bond independently.
As discussed above, it is for the parties to get their separate share declared from the competent succession court and, therefore, the order dated 19/11/2013 passed by the trial court is to be modified because the respondent No. 2 is not ready to execute a joint interim custody bond. However, looking to joint succession certificate, it may be presumed that the applicants and the respondent No. 2 have equal share in the property. Hence, order is modified with direction that at present valuation of all the ornaments be obtained by the trial court by calling some goldsmith, etc. and after getting complete valuation of each of the articles, interim custody of 3/4 th ornaments on the basis of valuation be given to the applicants on furnishing the interim custody bond of amount (as assessed) by the applicants before the trial court along with surety bond of the same amount then 3/4 th portion of the articles including golden and silver ornaments of the deceased be given on temporary custody to the applicants till demanded by the trial court.
(Smt. Ruchi Agrawal & Ors. vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) 3 M.Cr.C. No. 10372/2013 However, it is made clear that respondent No. 2 would be free to get the single succession certificate from the competent succession court and thereafter up to that portion for which he is declared to be successor of the deceased that portion shall be given by the trial court to the respondent No. 2 on interim custody, if he applies for the same and at that time it is found that share of the respondent No. 2 is not 1/4th or it is more then the entire jewellery shall be called by the trial court from the applicants again and shall pass an appropriate order of interim custody. Also if respondent No. 2 claims remaining 1/4th share of the ornaments then on making an application the trial court would be free to pass an appropriate order of interim custody.
With the aforesaid directions, the present petition is hereby disposed off.
Copy of this order be sent to the court below along with its record for information and compliance.
(N.K.Gupta) Judge Durgekar*