IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 11TH OCTOBER 2011 / 19TH ASWINA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 3143 of 2011() ------------------------- CMP.8546/2011 IN CRIME NO.372/2011 OF ERATTUPETTA POLICE STATION. ................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- PRADEEP, AGED 24, S/O.RAVEENDRAN, PRADEEPTHY HOUSE, (3/301), PARASHUVACKAL P.O., PARASALA, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695502 BY ADV. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR SMT.HENA BAHULEYAN RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED AND COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------- 1. ASHARAF, AGED 37, S/O.BASHEER, NELLITHANATHU HOUSE, CHANGANASSERRY TALUK, PAYIPADU VILLAGE-690556. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERATTUPETTA POLICE STATION-686121. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.T.R.RANJITH ADV. SRI.JOMY GEORGE FOR R1 SRI.SEBASTIAN THOMAS FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/10/2011, ALONG WITH CRMC NO.3257 OF 2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: SU CR.M.C.NO.3143/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE-I THE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.484/2011, DATED 21-7-2011 ISSUED BY THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, NEYYATTINKARA. ANNEXURE-II THE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE NO.A 0818593 DATED 5-7-2011 ISSUED BY THE INDIAN UNION KERALA STATE. ANNEXURE-III THE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE JOINT R.T.O. PARASSALA FOR THE VEHICLE BEARING REGISTRATION KL-19-B- 3800 DATED 28-7-2011. ANNEXURE-IV THE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF THE INSURANCE POLICY OF THE VEHICLE FOR THE PERIOD 20-7-2011 TO 19-7-2012. ANNEXURE-V THE COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT OF THE VEHICLE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSISTANT MOTOR VEHICLES INSPECTOR DATED 28-3-2011. ANNEXURE-VI THE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 27-7-2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFOR THE JUDICIAL IST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ERATTUPETTA, CRIME NO.372/2011. ANNEXURE-VII THE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 1-8-2011 SUBMITTED BY THE IST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL IST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ERATTUPETTA CRIME NO.372/2011 C.M.P.NO.8592/11. ANNEXURE-VIII THE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.8.2011 IN C. M.P.NO.8546/2011 C.M.P.NO.8592/2011 IN CRIME NO.372/2011 PASSED BY THE JUDICIAL IST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ERATTUPETTA. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE SU N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------- Crl.M.C. Nos.3143 & 3257 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of October 2011 O R D E R A Toyotta Innova Car bearing Reg.No.KL 19-B-3800 admittedly belonged to Mr.Pradeep who is the petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.3143/2011. To prove that he was the R.C.owner, a copy of the R.C. was produced, which is Annexure II. The insurance premium was also paid. The insurance stands extended to 19.12.2012. It stands in the name of Pradeep, the petitioner mentioned above. 2. It is contended by the petitioner that on 20.7.2011, the vehicle was given to one Shaji as he represented that he wanted to go to Tamil Nadu. It was stated that R.C. and other documents were in the car itself. Later the petitioner realised that the vehicle was sold by Shaji to Asharaf, who is the petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.3257/2011. With regard to the same, one Crl.M.C. Nos.3143 & 3257 of 2011 -: 2 :- complaint was filed by Pradeep on 21.7.2011, based on which a crime was registered against Shaji alleging offence under Sec.379 IPC. The vehicle was subsequently produced by Asharaf before S.I. of Police, Erattupetta. Asharaf filed a complaint stating that Pradeep and Shaji colluded together and cheated him. It is stated that, F.I.R. was registered based on that complaint and that also is pending investigation. Pradeep as well as Asharaf filed petitions before J.F.C.M., Erattupetta for getting interim custody of the vehicle mentioned above. 3. The learned Senior Counsel Sri.N.Nandakumara Menon appearing for the petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.3143/2011 submits that the petitioner - Pradeep has produced all the documents, namely; copy of the RC, insurance certificate and other documents to show that he was the absolute owner of the vehicle in question. On the other hand, Asharaf relies upon the agreement, copy of which is shown as Annexure 3 in Crl.M.C.No.3257/2011 Crl.M.C. Nos.3143 & 3257 of 2011 -: 3 :- which according to him was given by Shaji. Pradeep, the petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.3143/2011 denies the execution of Annexure 3 agreement. He asserts that his signature was forged. To find whether Annexure 3 is true or not, at present there is no material before the court. The learned Senior Counsel submits that simply by showing a statement styled as agreement containing forged signatures, a person cannot play fraud on the RC owner of the vehicle and effect sale of the vehicle by delivering the same to another person. The learned Senior Counsel would also submit that except the copy of the agreement referred to above there is no other document to show that there was an agreement between Pradeep and Shaji mentioned above. Whether there was a genuine agreement and delivery of the vehicle to Shaji is a question which is yet to be determined based on the documents to be produced by the respective parties. The petitioner Pradeep, the RC owner of the vehicle has produced the insurance certificate and other documents to Crl.M.C. Nos.3143 & 3257 of 2011 -: 4 :- show that he was the owner in possession of the vehicle. In the impugned order, the learned Magistrate has observed that, “..... From aforesaid RT particulars, it is clear that, petitioner in CMP.8546/11 namely Pradeep is the RC owner of the vehicle. AT the same time, He failed to produce any other documents to prove his ownership and possession on the vehicle.” This has been taken strong exception to by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.3143/2011. Since the RC and other documents were produced and the learned Magistrate himself finds that the petitioner – Pradeep is the RC owner of the vehicle there was no justification for the learned Magistrate to deny interim custody of the vehicle to the RC owner. The learned counsel further submits that since the agreement which is relied upon by Asharaf is alleged to be a forged one, based on that document the vehicle which is owned by the petitioner – Pradeep cannot be given interim custody to Crl.M.C. Nos.3143 & 3257 of 2011 -: 5 :- Asharaf. Since the RC and other documents stand in the name of the petitioner – Pradeep, it is just and proper that interim custody of the vehicle is given to Pradeep, the petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.3143/2011. The order of interim custody will be only subject to the final result of the litigation pending between the parties. If the vehicle is kept exposed to sun and rain, it will be damaged and if so, the RC owner will suffer irreparable injury. In such circumstance, I am inclined to allow the petition – Crl.M.C.No.3143/2011 ordering interim custody to the petitioner therein. In view of the same, Crl.M.C.No.3257/2011 is only to be dismissed. In the result, Crl.M.C.No.3257/2011 is dismissed. Crl.M.C.No.3143/2011 is allowed. The petitioner will furnish security by way of bank guarantee to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) or should execute a bond for Rs.5,00,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. The petitioner – Pradeep or one of the sureties Crl.M.C. Nos.3143 & 3257 of 2011 -: 6 :- should produce the original title deed before the learned Magistrate. The petitioner should also undertake that he will produce the vehicle before the learned Magistrate as and when directed and that he will not transfer the vehicle until otherwise ordered by the court. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Jvt