IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 2713 of 2009()
1. JOJIT JOSEPH, S/O.E.C.JOSEPH,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC
... Respondent
2. SHIHABUDEEN.M.I., S/O. AHAMMED
For Petitioner :SRI.N.K.SHYJU
For Respondent :SRI.S.RAJEEV
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :30/11/2009
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
===========================
CRL.M.C.No. 2713 & 2724 OF
2009
===========================
Dated this the 30th day of November,2009
ORDER
Stage Carriage bus KL-7/AC-3768 involved in Crime
314/2009 of Kumali Police Station was seized by the
police on the allegation that an offence under section
279 of Indian Penal Code is made out. The vehicle was
produced before the Magistrate and as directed, kept in
the police station. Petitioner filed CMP No.2500/2009
and second respondent filed CMP 2499/2009 for interim
custody of the vehicle under section 451 of Code of
Criminal Procedure. Petitioner claimed right based on
Annexure A1 agreement for sale contending that by the
said agreement, second respondent the registered owner
agreed to sell the vehicle for a total consideration of
Rs.10 lakhs and Rs. 3 lakhs was paid as advance and
therefore he is entitled to get interim custody of the
vehicle. Second respondent being the registered owner
claimed interim custody. By Annexure A5 order
Crl.M.C.2724/2009 application filed by the second
respondent was allowed and by Annexure A4 order in
Crl.M.C.2713/2009, the petition filed by the petitioner
Crl.M.C.2713 & 2724/2009 2
was dismissed. Crl.M.C.2713/2009 was filed to quash
Annexure A4 order by which his application for interim
custody was dismissed. Crl.M.C.2724/2009 is filed to
quash Annexure A5 order by which interim custody was
granted to the second respondent.
2. Petitioner would contend that eventhough second
respondent is the registered owner when he executed
Annexure A1 agreement, learned Magistrate should not have
granted interim custody of the vehicle to the second
respondent in view of the sale to the petitioner and
therefore the order is to be quashed.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent
pointed out that Annexure A1 agreement is a forged
agreement and it was not executed by the second respondent
and on coming to know about the forgery, a complaint was
filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Peerumedu
and it was sent for investigation under section 156(3) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure and Crime 314/2009 of Kumali
Police Station is registered for the offence under section
120B, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code and in such
circumstances, petitioner is not entitled to get interim
custody of the vehicle. It is argued that as second
respondent is the registered owner of the vehicle, learned
Magistrate rightly granted interim custody of the vehicle
to him and there is no reason to interfere with the order.
4. Annexure A5 order passed by the learned Magistrate
establish that it was the second respondent who has
Crl.M.C.2713 & 2724/2009 3
produced the entire vehicular documents including the R.C
book and the insurance certificate before the learned
Magistrate. Second respondent is admittedly the registered
owner of the vehicle. Though petitioner is claiming that
second respondent executed an agreement for sale after
receiving Rs.10 lakhs and the vehicle was transferred to
him, when second respondent disputes the agreement and
contend that the agreement was not executed by him and it
is a forged document, petitioner is not entitled to get
interim custody of the vehicle on the strength of the
document. I find no reason to interfere with the order
passed by the learned Magistrate under Annexure A5,
granting interim custody to the second respondent who is
the registered owner. If petitioner is having any right by
virtue of the alleged agreement executed by the second
respondent, he is at liberty to approach the civil court
seeking a decree based on the agreement. In any event,
when Annexure A5 order is liable to be modified or valid,
at the time of final disposal of the case as provided
under section 452 of Code of Criminal Procedure and it is
not the final decision on the point, I find no reason
whatsoever to interfere with that order.
Petitions are dismissed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
tpl/-
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
———————
W.P.(C).NO. /06
———————
JUDGMENT
SEPTEMBER,2006