IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2011 / 24TH ASHADHA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 555 of 2011() ------------------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17/12/2010 IN CMP.NO. 3900/10 AND CMP.NO. 3617/2010 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, PERAMBRA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ M/S. MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., GATE WAY, APPOLO BUNDER, MUMBAI, BRANCH CALICUT. DULY RPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER VINOD VIJAYAN. BY ADV. SRI.DEVAPRASANTH.P.J. RESPONDENT(S): REVISION RESPONDENT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SHYLAJA, (30 YEARS), W/O. SUDHEER, VALAPPIL HOUSE, MAKKADA.P.O., KAKKODI, CHERUKULAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.PIN-673 003 2. SUNDARAN.P.O., SUPRABHA HOUSE, MAKKADA.P.O., KAKKODI, CHERUKULAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.PIN-673 003 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SI OF POLICE, ATHOLI POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.PIN-682 031 R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SABU SREEDHARAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P No.555 OF 2011 -------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of July 2011 ORDER Common order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Perambra, over the rival claims raised for interim custody of a motor vehicle, seized by police and produced before the court, as involved in a criminal case, is impeached in the revision by the petitioner, whose application was negatived, ordering release of the vehicle to the rival claimant, its registered owner. 2. The revision petitioner claimed that as a financier it has advanced loan on the security of the vehicle and as such it is entitled to have its interim custody. It has a better claim than that of the registered owner, who made a rival claim since as per the terms of the loan agreement it has the right to repossess the vehicle, was its case. The outstanding liability over the loan, on default, extended to the tune of Rs.4 lakhs was also canvassed in its application. The learned Magistrate, after examining the merit of the claim, passed the impugned order holding that the petitioner, the financier, cannot seek interim custody of the vehicle produced before the court on the basis of the terms of the loan agreement. The right to repossess the vehicle if at all there is any term in the loan agreement can be exercised only by recourse to law resorting to the remedies provided Crl.R.P No.555/2011 - 2 - thereof, was the view taken by the Magistrate to disallow its claim. Claim made by the rival party, the registered owner, for interim custody of the vehicle was granted subject to conditions. That order is impeached in this revision. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. To my query, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner fairly conceded that the loan agreement provided for the determination of disputes with the debtor by way of recourse to arbitration. If that be so, it is open to the financier, the petitioner, who has extended loan under security of the vehicle, to take recourse to the provisions of the Arbitration Act, seeking its interim custody as provided under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. Sufficient safeguards have been made even in the order passed by the learned Magistrate directing the registered owner to execute bond for Rs.5 lakh each by him and also his surety to get release of the vehicle on interim custody. In the said circumstances, I find, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity. Revision is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the revision petitioner to take appropriate proceedings as provided by law. Sd/- vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge