IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2011 / 25TH ASWINA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 3417 of 2011() ------------------------------------- (ORDER NO.I.8845/2011 of SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE COURT,KOLLAM) .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ MAGMA FINCORP LIMITED, 1ST FLOOR, JAIN TOWERS, BYE PASS ROAD, VYTTILA, ERNAKULAM-682019, REPRESENTED BY THEIR ASSISTANT MANAGER, (LEAGL) RAJ C.R. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTING THE S.I. OF POLICE, CHATHANNOOR POLICE STATION. 2. AMALA RAJESH, W/O. LATE RAJESH ANTONY, M.P. VII/884/1124 THANIVILA HOUSE, PULLICHIRA.P.O., KOTTIYAM, KOLLAM-691 304. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts CRMC.NO.3417/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEX A1 COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 451 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DATED 29/8/2011. ANNEX A2 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.I.8845/2011 DATED 16/9/2011 PASSED BY THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, KOLLAM. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.3417 of 2011 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of October 2011 O R D E R Petitioner is a company which was stated to have financed the deceased for purchasing the vehicle in question. He (the loanee) committed suicide. The vehicle, which was stated to be situated in that residential premises was seized in Crime No.1016/2011 of Chathannoor Police Station. It is now stated to be in the custody of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kollam. The petitioner, the financier filed an application for getting release of the vehicle under Sec.451 of the Cr.P.C. Annexure A1 is that petition filed by the petitioner. As per Annexure A2 order, the learned SDM, Kollam dismissed the petition stating that since the owner of the vehicle expired, if the legal heirs approach the learned Magistrate with sufficient records, the vehicle would be released. Crl.M.C. No.3417 of 2011 -: 2 :- 2. It is seen that the wife of the deceased was not given notice on the petition – Annexure A1. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner was also not given notice subsequent to the filing of Annexure A1 petition. The learned SDM has to issue notice to the petitioner as well as to the 2nd respondent (the widow of the deceased) and will decide whether the vehicle is to be given interim custody to the petitioner or to the 2nd respondent. 3. It is stated that the 2nd respondent has already filed a suit as O.S.No.594/2011 before the Munsiff's Court, Kollam. Based on the same, she can also raise all contentions available to her with regard to the release of the vehicle. Since Annexure A2 order was passed without notice to any of the parties, that order is set aside. The learned SDM, Kollam is directed to dispose of Annexure A1 petition in accordance with law after giving notice to the petitioner and to the 2nd respondent (counter petitioner in Annexure A1). If any order has already been passed by the Crl.M.C. No.3417 of 2011 -: 3 :- civil court, then the SDM will act only subject to the order so passed. The learned SDM will dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. This Crl.M.C. is disposed of accordingly. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Jvt