Justice Sanjay Dhar, Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
Objection Can Be Raised And Considered Prior To Attachment U/s. 84 CrPC: Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court
|The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court had to determine whether such objections should be adjudicated after physical attachment or merely upon the order of attachment being passed.
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that an objection raised prior to attachment under Section 84 of the CrPC has to be decided before the attachment is effected.
The Court set aside an Order passed by the Judicial Magistrate and directed the Trial Magistrate to proceed expeditiously to decide the objections filed by the Petitioner to an attachment order, without waiting for a compliance report from the Deputy Commissioner. The issue before the Court was whether such objections should be adjudicated after physical attachment or merely upon the order of attachment being passed.
A Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar held, “It is also clear that Section 84 of the Cr. P. C provides that objections to the effect that the property does not belong to the accused can also be raised within six months from the date of such attachment. However, it does not bar raising of objection prior to the attachment. Thus, if a third party raises an objection prior to the attachment of the property, the court has to decide the same and if the court comes to the conclusion that the property does not belong to the Page 4 of 5 CRM(M) No.608/2024 VERDICTUM.IN accused, the court can pass an order, either declining to attach the property or withdraw the attachment order.”
Advocate Iman Abdul Muiz appeared for the Petitioner, while Advocate Sheikh Mushtaq represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Petitioner had challenged three Orders dealing with the Petitioner’s objections in terms of Section 84 of the CrPC, and requested the Deputy Commissioner concerned to provide a status report and implement previous orders, filing a compliance report. The other two Orders had directed the Deputy Commissioner to attach the whole or any part of the immovable property as well as the movable property of the Respondent.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court stated that Section 84 of the CrPC provides that objections to the effect that the property does not belong to the accused can also be raised within six months from the date of such attachment. However, the Court clarified that this provision does not bar raising of objection prior to the attachment.
The Bench explained, “However, it does not bar raising of objection prior to the attachment. Thus, if a third party raises an objection prior to the attachment of the property, the court has to decide the same and if the court comes to the conclusion that the property does not belong to the accused, the court can pass an order, either declining to attach the property or withdraw the attachment order. So, the observation of the learned trial Magistrate that the objections of the petitioner can be considered only after attachment of the property is effected on spot, is not in accordance with law.”
The Court stated that if a "third party raises an objection prior to the attachment of the property, the court has to decide the same." Furthermore, if the Court "comes to the conclusion that the property does not belong to the accused, the court can pass an order, either declining to attach the property or withdraw the attachment order."
Consequently, the Court ordered, “For the foregoing reason, the impugned order dated 11.09.2024 passed by the learned trial Magistrate is set aside and the learned trial Magistrate is directed to proceed ahead and decide the objections filed by the petitioner to the attachment order most expeditiously after hearing the parties, without waiting for the compliance report of the Deputy Commissioner concerned.”
Cause Title: Sheikh Showkat v. Ghulam Jeelani Chesti & Ors. (CRM(M) No.608/2024)