High Court Kerala High Court

Sreerag Finance vs The State Of Kerala on 8 January, 2007

Kerala High Court
Sreerag Finance vs The State Of Kerala on 8 January, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 3777 of 2006()


1. SREERAG FINANCE, REPRESENTED BY PRINCE
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. JULLY.V.S., VETTUKALLAMKUZHIYIL,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.JIJO PAUL

                For Respondent  :SRI.S.SACHITHANANDA PAI

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :08/01/2007

 O R D E R
                                 R.BASANT, J

                              ----------------------

                          Crl.M.C.No.3777 of 2006

                        ----------------------------------------

                Dated this the 8th day of January   2007


                                   O R D E R

The petitioner claims to be a financier in respect of a

vehicle. The second respondent herein is admittedly the

registered owner of the vehicle. The second respondent

complained to the police that a theft had taken place of the said

vehicle. The police, in the course of the investigation, seized the

vehicle. The second respondent applied for release of the

vehicle under Section 451 Cr.P.C. His was the earlier

application for release. Subsequently, the petitioner herein filed

an application under Section 451 Cr.P.C for release of the

vehicle to him. To a pointed query of this court, it is conceded

that the petitioner has no case that the vehicle was seized from

his possession by the police. However, he claims right to re-

possess the vehicle in as much as there has been default in

payment of instalment by the second respondent. Both petitions

were simultaneously pending before the learned Magistrate.

The learned Magistrate, without taking note of the pendency of

the application filed by the petitioner, took up the petition filed

by the second respondent for consideration and by Annexure A

Crl.M.C.No.3777/06 2

order directed the release of the vehicle to the second

respondent herein.

2. Later, it was brought to the notice of the learned

Magistrate that the petition filed by the petitioner herein

remains without disposal. When that petition came up for

hearing, the learned Magistrate proceeded to pass Annexure B

order. In as much as Annexure A order could not be reviewed by

the learned Magistrate, sitting as a criminal court, the learned

Magistrate proceeded to pass Annexure B order dismissing the

petition filed by the petitioner.

3. The short grievance of the petitioner is that for an

error committed by the court, he may not be forced to endure

prejudice. Both petitions must have been disposed of together as

the identical relief – release of the vehicle to the respective

claimants under Section 451 Cr.P.C, was prayed.

4. I do not intend to express any opinion on merits but I

am satisfied that the grievance of the petitioner is justified. Both

petitions must have been disposed of together and

simultaneously by the learned Magistrate.

5. What then is the best course that the court can now

follow?

6. I am satisfied that both Annexure A and B orders can

Crl.M.C.No.3777/06 3

be set aside and the learned Magistrate can be directed to

dispose of both petitions together after giving the rival

contestants opportunity to raise and substantiate their

contentions and disprove the contentions of the adversary. Such

direction shall satisfy the ends of justice eminently.

7. The vehicle is now with the second respondent. The

second respondent can be permitted to keep the vehicle in his

possession subject to fresh orders that will be passed by the

learned Magistrate as indicated above. To that extent, Annexure

A order though set aside as a final order shall be reckoned as an

order regarding temporary release of the vehicle, till both

petitions are disposed of afresh.

8. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is

allowed in part to the extent indicated above.

9. Both parties shall appear before the learned

Magistrate on 22/01/2007 for fresh disposal of the petitions.

Needless to say, this order shall not in any way fetter the rights

of both contestants to advance their respective contentions

before the learned Magistrate.

Hand over copy of this order to the learned counsel for the

petitioner for production before the learned Magistrate.

Crl.M.C.No.3777/06 4

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

jsr

Crl.M.C.No.3777/06 5

R.BASANT, J

C.R.R.P.No.

ORDER

21ST DAY OF JULY 2006