1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:10.10.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU Criminal Original Petition (MD) No.8962 of 2011 M/s.Cholamandalam Investments and Finance Limited rep. By C.Bhagyaraj, Assistant Manager (legal), 48 C, New Millenium Complex, Kalavasal, Madurai-16. ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The State rep. By Inspector of Police, North Police Station, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District. ... Respondent/Complainant 2.Akbar Ali ... 2nd Respondent This petition is preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C to permit the petitioner for sale of vehicle bearing Reg.No.TN 09 R 3434 which is under the hypothecation and the custody of the petitioner company and to direct the learned Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi to return the Registration certificate of the said vehicle. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Sankar For Respondent No.1 : Mr.P.Kannithevan Govt. Advocate(Crl.Side) ORDER The motor vehicle bearing Regn.No.TN 09 R 3434 is involved in a case of theft in Cr.No.173 of 2009. During investigation, the said vehicle was seized by the respondent and produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi. The petitioner who claims to be a company, extended a loan for purchase of the said vehicle. During pending investigation, the petitioner has approached the learned Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi for return of the vehicle under Section 451 Cr.P.C. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi has ordered for return of the vehicle for safe custody. Now the vehicle is in the safe custody of the petitioner. The petitioner has come up with the present petition seeking a permission to sell the said vehicle in public auction. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 2. In my considered opinion, the said request cannot be considered at all. First of all, there is a judicial order entrusting the vehicle with a condition not to sell. Unless the said condition imposed by the Judicial Magistrate is either cancelled or revised, it is not possible to pass another judicial order, which is contrary to the said order. Apart from that, the petitioner has not impleaded the accused as respondent in this case. Even assuming, if an order is passed to dispose of the vehicle without hearing the accused, in future, the accused may come and claim the vehicle. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment of this court in (Sundaram Finance Limited, rep., by its Branch Manager, P.Vijayakumar vs the State of Tamil Nadu, rep., by Inspector of Police, Kaveripattinam Police Station, Krishnagiri Taluk and Another) reported in (2011) 1 MLJ (Crl) 191. It is not known whether in that case, any petition was filed before the Judicial magistrate and wherein, such condition was imposed by the Judicial Magistrate and hence, the same cannot be a precedent to dispose of the present petition. It is only open for the Judicial Magistrate to modify the condition imposed by him. Section 482 Cr.P.C is not a remedy for the petitioner, to approach this Court, by filing this petition. Hence, this petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy before the Magistrate concerned. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AS) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi. 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 3.The Inspector of Police, North Police Station, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District. +1 CC to Mr.M.Sankar, Advocate (SR.No.35372) Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8962 of 2011 10.10.2011 vs NSV/21.10.11/2P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/