IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2008 / 31ST BHADRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3410 of 2008() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05/08/2008 IN CMP.4092/2008 IN CMP.3842/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, KOTTARAKKARA .................... PETITIONER: ------------ MUJEEB, S/O MAJEED, PARUTHIVILA VEEDU, PAPPANAMKODE, PERINGAMALA, NEDUMANGAD TALUK BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADAKKAL POLICE STATION, KADAKKAL. 2. SURESH KUMAR, S/O PONAPPAN CHETTIYAR, MULAMOOTTIL VEEDU, ANCHAL, THAZHAMEL, ANCHAL VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB SRI.G.BIJU FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3410 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of September 2008 O R D E R The petitioner is the complainant in a private complaint alleging offences punishable inter alia under Sections 120B and 420 I.P.C. The said complaint was forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Crime has been registered. Investigation is in progress. 2. The crux of the allegations raised by the petitioner herein in such private complaint is that two vehicles - a Maruti car and a Scorpio car belonging to him were entrusted by him to the accused persons who were refusing to return the same. The vehicles were seized. The first vehicle that is Scorpio car was produced before the police by one Rajesh. The Maruti car was produced before the police by the second respondent. Both the petitioner and the second respondent staked claims for release of the vehicles to them. By the impugned common order, the learned Magistrate dismissed the application holding that the necessary documents have not been produced. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Magistrate had erred grossly in not applying his mind to the controversy raised. The petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle. Crl.M.C.No.3410/08 2 The particulars of registration were made available to the learned Magistrate. But the learned Magistrate has not chosen to look into the same. Similarly it is contended that the second respondent herein has also advanced the contention that he is the registered owner of the vehicle under an agreement with the accused persons. It is submitted that a civil suit has been filed and all the relevant documents have been produced before the civil court. The original R.C book of the Maruti car was also available with the second respondent and he has produced the same before the civil court, it is submitted. In short, both the petitioner and the second respondent submit that the learned Magistrate has not alertly applied his judicial mind to the controversy at all. The parties have not been permitted to or called upon to adduce relevant evidence. It is in these circumstances that the impugned order which reveals want of application of mind is passed, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. I have considered all the relevant circumstances. I have gone through the impugned order. I must say that the impugned order is definitely inadequate. No proper consideration has been undertaken by the learned Magistrate. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that the impugned order can be set aside and the learned Magistrate can be directed to dispose of the matter afresh after giving the parties sufficient opportunity to substantiate their Crl.M.C.No.3410/08 3 contention by producing adequate material. I do also note that the disposal of the application without notice to the person who produced the Scorpio car before the learned Magistrate is, at any rate, not justified at all. The learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to take necessary steps to array the said person also as a respondent. 4. In the result, a) This petition is allowed. b) The impugned order is set aside. c) The learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of the petitions afresh after giving the petitioner herein opportunity to array Sri.Rajesh referred to in the order as an additional respondent and after giving all the parties concerned sufficient opportunity to raise their contentions and substantiate the same by evidence. 5. The parties shall appear before the learned Magistrate on 29/9/2008 with a copy of this order. The learned Magistrate shall take all necessary steps to expeditiously pass orders afresh in the applications. Hand over copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.3410/08 4 Crl.M.C.No.3410/08 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008