IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2009 / 26TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1864 of 2009(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.J. SABU, S/O. LATE JOHN, POOVANTHRA HOUSE, POLACHIRA BHAGAM, CHINGAVANAM POST, NATTAKOM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.KURUVILLA JACOB RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE S.I. OF POLICE, CHINGAVANAM POLICE STATION, CHINGAVANAM POST, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. THE TRAVANCORE CREDIT CORPORATION, BAKER JUNCTION, KOTTAYAM, REP. BY ITS MANAGER. 3. BENNY KURIAKOSE, S/O. KURIAKOSE, THONDUKUZHIYIL HOUSE, POLACHIRA BHAGAM, CHINGAVANAM POST, NATTAKOM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY G.P. SRI. P.A. SALIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/1/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(c) No. 1864 of 2009-V ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the de facto complainant in a crime registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Secs.403 and 406 IPC. The crux of the allegations raised by the petitioner is that a vehicle of which he is the registered owner and for the purchase of which he had entered into an agreement for finance with the 2nd respondent was forcibly taken away from his possession without any legal authority. That vehicle is now being used by the 3rd respondent herein, it is further alleged. The petitioner's grievance was not heeded to by the police. That obliged the petitioner to go before the learned Magistrate and file a complaint. That complaint was referred to the police and it was thus that the complaint was forwarded to the police under Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C. A crime was W.P.(c) No. 1864 of 2009-V -: 2 :- registered thereafter. 2. The present grievance of the petitioner is that a proper investigation is not being conducted. The vehicle continues to remain in the illegal custody of respondent No.2 and/or 3. The petitioner approached the learned Magistrate with a prayer that directions may be issued to the Investigating Officer to seize the vehicle. That petition was filed on 30/12/08. According to the petitioner, the learned Magistrate called for a report of the Investigating Officer. Subsequently, the petitioner is being unnecessarily harassed. The case stood posted to 14/1/09. No report was filed by the Investigating Officer and now the case stands posted to 20/1/09. The short prayer of the petitioner is that learned Magistrate may be directed to pass appropriate and strict directions to ensure that a proper investigation is concluded and the vehicle is seized. 3. I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's application deserves to be considered and dispose of on merits expeditiously. The matter now stands posted to 20/1/09, it is submitted. I need only mention that I expect the learned Magistrate to pass appropriate orders on such application filed by the petitioner as expeditiously as W.P.(c) No. 1864 of 2009-V -: 3 :- possible – at any rate, within a period of three days from 20/1/09. 4. This writ petition is accordingly allowed and above directions are issued. 5. Issue a photocopy of this judgment to the learned counsel for the petitioner forthwith. (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/