IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 28TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 9TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 545 of 2011() ------------------------ CMP.8784/2010 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT I,OTTAPPALAM .................... (CRIME NO.1210/2010 ORF OTTAPPALAM POLICE STATION) ........ PETITIONER(S): 2ND RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------ M/S.INDUS IND BANK LTD., (VEHICLE FINANCE DIVISION), "SHALOM TOWERS", 34/138-D BYE PASS NORTH END, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI- 682 024, REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL EXECUTIVE BISIN.K.S. BY ADVS. SRI.G.HARIHARAN, SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENT(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OTTAPPALAM, PIN 679 101. 3. ASIF, S/O.ABDULLA KALLIAYATH, AMBALAPPARA P.O., (VIA) OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN 679 512. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.545 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 28th day of February, 2011 O R D E R Petitioner is respondent No.2 in Annexure-II, petition filed by respondent No.3, the de facto complainant in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ottappalam in Crime No.1210 of 2010 of Ottappalam police station. Vide Annexure-III, notice learned Magistrate has directed petitioner to produce the vehicle before the court on 24.01.2011. That order is under challenge. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is not a party in Crime No.1210 of 2010 and that it is without hearing petitioner that the said order was passed. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. It is submitted that petitioner is a Banking Company and that the third respondent availed a loan from it for purchase of the vehicle in question. Third respondent pledged that vehicle with a Private Financier as against terms of the agreement with the petitioner. Dispute arose between the third respondent and the said Private Financier which has given rise to Crime No.1210 CRL.M.C. No.545 of 2011 -: 2 :- of 2010. The police seized the vehicle and produced the same in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ottappalam. It is contended that the third respondent was given interim custody of the vehicle. Petitioner says that it was not aware of the proceeding, third respondent defaulted payment and the third respondent handed over the vehicle to the petitioner in June 2010 promising to repay the loan and take back the vehicle. It is while so, that third respondent filed Annexure-II, petition and the learned Magistrate issued Annexure-III, notice. Learned counsel submits that since there was no proceeding against petitioner the vehicle is already sold for recovery of amount due from the third respondent. 3. Learned Magistrate has issued only a notice obviously under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure directing petitioner to produce the vehicle before court on 24.01.2011. It is open to the petitioner to appear before learned Magistrate and state its case. There is no reason why this Court should interfere with Annexure-III, notice. Without prejudice to the right of petitioner to approach the CRL.M.C. No.545 of 2011 -: 3 :- learned Magistrate and answer to Annexure-III, notice this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is closed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv