IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4229 of 2008() ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ALGIFRI S/O. MUHAMMADALI, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, PALAKKAL @ MAKKINTE PURAKKAL PUTTHUPONNANI DESOM, KADAVANADU AMSOM PONNANI TALUK, MALAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.JIJI THOMAS SMT.SMITHA MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PONNANI POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.4229 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of November, 2008 ORDER Petitioner claims to be the owner of a vehicle which is in the custody of the police from 14.09.06. That vehicle was seized in Crime No.364 of 2006 of Ponnani Police Station. The seizure of that vehicle was effected along with some other vehicle from the possession of one Haneefa. The crux of the allegations in that crime registered is that the said Haneefa is involved in the culpable activity of purchasing damage vehicles and using the documents in respect of such vehicles to legitimise possession of and transactions in thieved vehicles. Investigation to that crime is in progress. Final report has not been filed yet. The vehicle in question, which the petitioner claims possession now, has thus been remaining in the custody of the police from 14.09.06. 2. At this juncture, the petitioner stakes a claim for the vehicle on the basis of a subsequent agreement dt.03.06.08. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that this agreement is one brought into existence for the very specific purpose long after the vehicle came into custody of the police. The learned Public Crl.M.C. No.4229 of 2008 2 Prosecutor, in these circumstances, submits that the petition by the petitioner before this Court at the first instance is totally unjustified. The petitioner may be directed to stake his claim before the learned Magistrate to whom seizure has already been reported and seek appropriate orders. 3. I find the objection raised by the learned Public Prosecutor to be absolutely justified. The petitioner has to stake his claim before the learned Magistrate under Section 451/457 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate must, after giving interested parties an opportunity to be heard and after giving the parties an opportunity to substantiate their contentions, pass appropriate orders. The option of the petitioner to challenge the said order shall, of course, remain unfettered by the dismissal of this Crl.M.C. 4. With the above observations, this Crl.M.C is dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-