IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2008 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 1124 of 2008() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06/02/2008 IN CMP 5595/07 IN CMP.5655/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, KANNUR .................... PETITIONER: PETITIONER: ----------------------- M.K. PRASANTH, S/O.K.M.KUNHIRAMAN, AGED 40 YEARS, NOW RESIDING AT GURUMUKHA HOUSE, P.O. PALLIKKUNNU, CHETTIPPEEDIKA, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT & PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA (S.H.O., KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION), REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2. P. SUDEEP, S/O. SURENDRAN, CHETTIPEEDIKA, KANNUR. 3. P. MANOJ, S/O. BHASKARAN, AGED 37, PULIANDI HOUSE, CHIRAKKAL AMSOM,PUZHATHI. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JAOCB. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT FOR R3 SRI.K.N.ABHILASH FOR R3 SMT.R.LEELA FOR R3 SRI.P.NARAYANAN FOR R.2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 1124 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of June, 2008 ORDER The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Magistrate in a petition under Sec.451 of the Cr.P.C. 2. To the skeletal facts first. The petitioner claims to be the registered owner of a vehicle. He had obtained the vehicle from the former registered owner and he was allegedly keeping possession of the vehicle. 3. The 3rd respondent herein filed a complaint before the police alleging that he had entered into an agreement with the 2nd respondent for the sale of the very same vehicle and that he was in possession of the vehicle. On that date of the alleged crime, the 2nd respondent had allegedly taken the vehicle stealthily from the possession of the 3rd respondent. The original of the agreement between the 2nd respondent and the Crl.M.C. No. 1124 of 2008 -: 2 :- 3rd respondent which was also allegedly available in the car was taken away by the 2nd respondent, it was alleged. The 2nd respondent is none other than the son-in-law of the petitioner herein. 4. A crime was registered. The vehicle was allegedly seized from the possession of the petitioner herein when he produced it before the police. The vehicle was produced before the learned Magistrate. Both the petitioner and the 3rd respondent applied for release of the vehicle. By the impugned order, the learned Magistrate directed the release of the vehicle to the 3rd respondent. 5. The petitioner asserts that he is the registered owner of the vehicle. The vehicle has been taken from his possession by the police. The 2nd respondent - the son-in-law, was never in possession of the vehicle. He has no legal authority to enter into an agreement or to part with possession of the vehicle. The 3rd respondent's claim that he was in legal possession of the vehicle through the 2nd respondent, does not deserve to be accepted at all. No material whatsoever was produced before the learned Magistrate in support of such a theory. In these circumstances, the vehicle must have been released to the petitioner herein, counsel contends. Crl.M.C. No. 1124 of 2008 -: 3 :- 6. The 3rd respondent has a totally different version to advance. According to him, the petitioner herein is introduced into the transaction at a belated stage only to help the 2nd respondent. The vehicle was with an used car seller who had obtained it from the previous registered owner. The used car seller had entered into an agreement with the 2nd respondent. In that written agreement, the 3rd respondent is a witness. From the 2nd respondent, the 3rd respondent had purchased the vehicle as per an agreement. Original of that agreement has been stealthily removed along with the vehicle. But a notarised copy of the agreement was available with the 3rd respondent and the same has been produced before the learned Magistrate. Subsequently, the petitioner herein has clandestinely got the vehicle transferred to his name and it is thus that he is staking a claim for the vehicle now. 7. In the course of discussions at the Bar, it is submitted that the copy of the agreement between the used car seller and the 2nd respondent which is available with the 3rd respondent has not been produced before the learned Magistrate. In that agreement, the 3rd respondent is an attesting witness. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent prays that the 3rd respondent may be given an opportunity to produce all the Crl.M.C. No. 1124 of 2008 -: 4 :- documents which have not been produced before the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate may be directed to dispose of the matter afresh. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigation is now complete and it is understood that the police have taken a decision to refer the case as false. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am satisfied that a direction can be issued to the learned Magistrate to dispose of the petition under Sec.451 of the Cr.P.C. afresh after giving all the contestants an opportunity to adduce evidence and substantiate their contentions. Till that is done, the 3rd respondent, who is entrusted with the vehicle as per a bond, can be permitted to keep the vehicle. All counsel agree to that course. 9. In the result: (a) This Crl.M.C. is allowed. (b) The impugned order is set aside. (c) The learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of both C.M.P.Nos.5595/07 and 5655/07 afresh in accordance with law after giving the parties an opportunity to substantiate their contentions. (d) The parties shall appear before the learned Magistrate Crl.M.C. No. 1124 of 2008 -: 5 :- on 11/6/08. The learned Magistrate shall dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two weeks from 11/6/08. Till then, the 3rd respondent shall be permitted to keep the vehicle in his possession on the strength of the bond already executed by him. 10. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner and the 3rd respondent for immediate production before the learned Magistrate. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge