Allahabad High Court Safeguards Property Rights in Landmark Judgment Regarding Section 83 CrPC
The Allahabad High Court has held in a landmark judgment that under Section 83 CrPC of the Code of Criminal Procedure, only that property which belongs to the accused and is owned by them can be attached, not properties where the accused stays but does not own it, like rented residences.
With this observation, a single-judge bench of Justice Abdul Moin set aside an earlier order under Section 83 CrPC which had attached the property belonging to the father of an accused charged under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
Detailed Court Observations
Having gone through the wording of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 83 CrPC, the court has come to the conclusion that it provides for attachment of property belonging to the proclaimed person. This judgment lays down that ownership is a sine qua non to the passing of an order under Section 83, CrPC, directing attachment.
Thus, the court held that no attachment order could be validly issued without a finding on its part prima facie that the property concerned belongs to the accused. This basic requirement was viewed as necessary for protecting the integrity of the judicial process and for protecting the rights of the owners who are not directly concerned with the case.
Justice Abdul Moin pointed out that the literal reading of the statute was imperative to curb the mischief and to prevent hardship to the innocent party, who otherwise may be unnecessarily roped into the litigation. Hence, this judgment further assured due process and careful judicial scrutiny of a case of attachment of property.
Background of the Case
The case came to be from an FIR dated November 2015 by one Saiyyad Ali Hasan under Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act read with certain provisions of the IPC, arraying one Faiyaz Abbas, the appellant; Faiz Abbas, son of the appellant; and Smt. Guddo, wife of the appellant, as accused.
The authorities could not secure the appearance of Faiz Abbas despite efforts. Thereafter an order under Section 82 CrPC was issued. The next order after that was under Section 83 CrPC where the property of the appellant was attached on the ground that Faiz Abbas was residing there.
Legal Challenge and Appeal
Objections under Section 84 CrPC were filed by the appellant, whose property was attached. He claimed to be the sole owner of the house and denied any ownership interest of his son Faiz Abbas in the same, while raising objections. He thus prayed for quashing of the attachment order.
The lower court, however, rejected these objections and observed that it was not necessary to determine ownership and further justified the attachment since the accused was residing in the property. This led the appellant to challenge this in appeal and contended that Section 83 CrPC permits attachment of only property belonging to the proclaimed person and not of third parties.
Critical Analysis by the High Court
While deciding the case, the High Court has gone through threadbare, Sections 82 and 83 of the CrPC. The court observed that under Section 82 CrPC, a proclamation for appearance can be issued and on non-compliance, then an order for attachment of property belonging to the proclaimed person can be made. It emphasized that the property should belong to the proclaimed person, not a mere place of residence.
Justice Abdul Moin termed the lower court’s reasoning that only two rooms of the house, where the accused was residing, were attached, and remarked that even the partial attachment of property which does not belong to the accused cannot be validated under the law.
It was further elaborated that the fact of residence in a rented property does not empower the authorities to attach or seize the rented property as it does not belong to the proclaimed person. This explanation is quite imperative for safeguarding the rights of landlords and house owners who at times get unfairly affected by such attachments.
Broader Legal Context and Implications
The judgment is an important interpretation of Sections 82 and Section 83 CrPC by the Allahabad High Court, having wide implications for the legal fraternity at large. The judgment acts as a precedent to ensure that attachment of property is strictly confined to the accused’s property only, so that the property rights of third parties are not infringed.
Read other article just click rozanasamachar
It also brings out the fact that the learned court’s decision requires the judicial officers to seriously consider the ownership of the property before issuing attachment orders, so that the provisions of the CrPC are not misused and the rights of the people are not infringed without sufficient legal justification.
What it illustrates is the court’s strong belief in upholding the rule of law, and that legal processes have to be followed to the dot. It sends out a very strong message that courts will not countenance the slightest deviation from the requirement of the statute, more so when it comes to property rights.
Case Reference
Case Title: Faiyaz Abbas vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 449
Case Number: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 194 of 2024
Counsel for Appellant: Mohd. Kumail Haider
Implications for Future Cases
The judgment of the Allahabad High Court makes a significant statement before future cases where the provisions under Section 83 CrPC for attachment of property are resorted to. The legal fraternity and police authorities will have to be careful in ensuring that orders of attachment are issued only in respect of properties belonging to the accused. This shall obviate any challenge in law and make the process accord with the requirements of the statute.
This judgment also acts as a precedent for other high courts as well as lower subordinate courts that may have to decide on similar cases. It holds that the attachment order is not issued without proper scrutiny of ownership of the property, and due care is taken to avoid harassment of the owner whose property is attached.
Know more about Adv Mohd Kumail Haider, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad & Lucknow Bench, connect on his social media handles –