IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 26TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 7TH PHALGUNA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3135 of 2008() ------------------------- CMP.2562/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-IV, KOZHIKODE IN CRIME NO. 214/2008 OF NADAKKAVU POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER(S): 2ND RESPONDENT: ------------------------------ K.AJAYLAL @ LALU, 41 YEARS, S/O.KUNHIKELU, AJITHA NIVAS, ERANHIPALAM P.O., KACHERY VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER/STATE: -------------------------------- 1. N.V.THOMAS, S/O.VARKEY, NEERAMPUZHA HOUSE, NATHAMKUNI P.O., MEPPADI, WYNAD. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NADAKKAVU POLICE STATION. 3. ANOOP.R., S/O.N.S.RAJU, KOTTAPPALLY HOUSE, MAKKADA P.O., KAKKODI, KOZHIKODE. 4. BINOY.N.REJINOLD, S/O.REJINOLD, THAIKKANNITHAZHATH HOUSE, NEAR SASEENDRA BANK, KAKKODI VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE. 5. STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A. SALIM SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS FOR R1 SRI.SRINATH GIRISH FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- CRL.M.C.No. 3135 OF 2008 --------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of February, 2009 O R D E R This petition is filed against the order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-IV, Kozhikode in C.M.P. 2562/2008. The C.M.P is filed under Section 451 of the Crl.P.C with a prayer to release the vehicle. The 1st respondent seized the vehicle and the 2nd respondent has lodged a claim for the vehicle on the basis that he had purchased the car from Mr. M.V. Premarajan of Kannur. The court considered the materials and found that the vehicle was seized from the possession of the petitioner therein and there was also an agreement sale executed by the original R.C. owner in favour of the petitioner. He had also availed financial facility to the vehicle as early as in 2007. The 2nd respondent's case would reveal that he had filed a case under Section 420 IPC against one Binoy N. Reginold who had received the payment, but not handover the possession. As rightly held by the court there are documents indicating seizure from the possession of the petitioner, an agreement of sale in favour of the petitioner and Crl.M.C. 3135/2008 -2- also availing of loan facility by the petitioner for the vehicle. For an interim custody of the vehicle under Section 451 of the Crl.P.C., the prima facie materials are strongly leaning towards the petitioner therein and therefore I do not find any grounds to interfere the order passed by the court. Therefore the Crl.M.C is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN,JUDGE vkm