Loading...

Jojit Joseph vs State Of Kerala on 30 November, 2009

Kerala High Court
Jojit Joseph vs State Of Kerala on 30 November, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  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

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information