IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2011 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 4063 of 2010() ------------------------- CMP.2063/2010 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, PERAMBRA .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- RAMANI, AGED 52 YEARS, W/O.RAMOTTY, MARUTHERIKKOTH HOUSE, P.O.AVIDANALOOR, BALUSSERY. BY ADVS. SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI, SMT.C.G.PREETHA, SRI.T.K.SANDEEP, SRI.ARJUN SREEDHAR, SRI.ARUN KRISHNADHAN. RESPONDENT(S): STATE/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. AKHILA, AGED 22 YEARS, D/O.ASOKAN, PARACHALIL VEEDU, KAYANNA BAZAR P.O., KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 525. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4063 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 08th day of June, 2011 ORDER Son of petitioner and husband of the second respondent committed suicide. Following that, on a complaint preferred by the second respondent the Balussery police registered Crime No.227 of 2010, I am told, for offence punishable under Sec.306 r/w Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code. In the course of investigation the police seized four vehicles-two jeeps, one autorikshaw and one motorcycle owned by the deceased and a report regarding seizure was submitted before learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Perambra. The second respondent filed C.M.P.No.220 of 2010 while petitioner filed C.M.P.No.2063 of 2010 for interim custody of the said vehicles. Learned Magistrate by separate orders dismissed both the petitions. Annexure-III is the order dismissing C.M.P.No.2063 of 2010 filed by the petitioner. Second respondent has not so far challenged the order on C.M.P.No.220 of 2010. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that Annexure-III, order dismissing C.M.P.No.2063 of 2010 cannot be sustained. It is submitted that for the last one year the vehicles Crl.M.C.No.4063 of 2010 -: 2 :- are remaining idle at the Police Station and if that continues, the same will get damaged and lost which will not be beneficial to either of the parties. Petitioner is prepared to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court in case the vehicles are released to her. The request is opposed by the learned counsel for second respondent. According to the second respondent, she is entitled to get custody of the vehicles. Learned counsel submitted that steps are being taken to challenge the order on C.M.P.No.220 of 2010. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor as well. 3. The Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambala Desai Vs. State of Gujarat (AIR 2003 SC 638) has prescribed guidelines in the matter of release of vehicles seized in the course of investigation. It is stated that on appropriate conditions and subject to sufficient safeguards it is open to the Courts to release vehicles, if necessary keeping its photographs so that the photographs could be used in evidence. In the present case, four vehicles are involved and it is not disputed before me the same are remaining idle for the last about one year. It would appear to me that petitioner and the second respondent are legal heirs of the deceased. 4. When the matter came before me, learned counsel on both sides agreed that some arrangement could be made so that Crl.M.C.No.4063 of 2010 -: 3 :- of the four vehicles, parties can keep in custody of two vehicles each. But, I think that is a matter which the trial court has to decide. 5. Having regard to the circumstances stated, though there is no separate challenge to the order on C.M.P.No.220 of 2010, I am inclined to invoke the extra ordinary power of the Court under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to work out justice between the parties. Having regard to the circumstances I am inclined to allow this criminal miscellaneous case as well in the following lines: Annexure-A3, order on C.M.P.No.2063 of 2010 and the order on C.M.P.No.220 of 2010 passed by learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Perambra are set aside. Learned Magistrate is directed to consider C.M.P.No.2063 of 2010 and C.M.P.No.220 of 2010 in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court referred above and pass appropriate orders. It is open to the parties to place their settlement before the learned Magistrate. Learned Magistrate shall impose appropriate conditions to ensure that the vehicles are produced before Court as and when directed in the same condition as they are taken custody. Learned Magistrate shall also ensure that before release of the vehicles photographs of the same, exhibiting its registration number and attested by the parties are produced Crl.M.C.No.4063 of 2010 -: 4 :- before learned Magistrate along with photocopy of the vehicular documents of the vehicles which shall be retained and transmitted to the Court which is trying the case. Learned Magistrate may also impose other appropriate conditions and require the parties to execute bonds. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/- /True Copy/ P.A to Judge