IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2011 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 981 of 2011() ------------------------------------- CMP.NO.1665/2011 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT I, KOTTARAKKARA. ................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- BIJU MATHEW, S/O. MATHEW, KOLLAPPALLIL VEEDU, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT, (POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF M/S. BALAJI FINANCE). (ORIGINAL POWER OF ATTORNEY PRODUCED BEFORE THE COURT BELOW). BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUTHOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SRI. VINEETH KUMAR, S/O. THAMPI, KRISHNA BHAVANAM VEEDU, KULAKKADA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.981 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 30th day of March, 2011 O R D E R This case is in challenge of the common order on C.M.P. Nos.1221 and 1665 of 2011 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kottarakkara regarding interim custody of a vehicle. The vehicle was given to the custody of second respondent. Petitioner claims to be the owner of the vehicle as per a hire purchase agreement. According to the petitioner, second respondent is only its hirer until the entire amount due is paid and the vehicle is transferred to the second respondent. But it is seen that the learned Magistrate while disposing of the petitions directed that the common order will not stand in the way of petitioner/financier repossessing the vehicle as provided under law. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner has already filed O.S. No.78 of 2011 in the Sub Court, Kottarakkara for appropriate relief against the second respondent and that an application was also filed for attachment of the vehicle which was dismissed by the learned Sub Judge. 2. Since the matter is pending before the civil court and CRL.M.C. No.981 of 2011 -: 2 :- the learned Magistrate in the impugned order made it clear that the impugned order will not stand in the way of petitioner repossessing the vehicle as provided under law, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. I make it clear that this order will not stand in the way of petitioner pursuing his remedy as provided under law for appropriate relief in respect of the vehicle in the pending suit or in any other proceeding as the case may be. Criminal Miscellaneous Case is dismissed with the above observation. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv