IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2009 / 22ND POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4 of 2009(A) --------------------------------- ( CC.143/2008 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THRISSUR ) .................... PETITIONER/ ACCUSED: ----------------------------------- P.A.THOMAS, PLACKAL HOUSE, MALA, PALLIPPURAM.P.O, VIA KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DIST. BY ADVS. SRI.G.HARIHARAN, SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANT & STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THRISSUR EAST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR. 2. M/S.SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED, ARAFA TOWERS, VELIYANNUR ROAD, THRISSUR. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 & R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB, R2 BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH NAMBIAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/01/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.4 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of January, 2009 ORDER Against the petitioner, a prosecution was initiated under Section 420 I.P.C. The petitioner had entered into an agreement for finances for purchase of a vehicle. There is dispute as to whether the petitioner has entered into an agreement with the 2nd respondent or with another. Be that as it may, the 2nd respondent filed a complaint alleging that the petitioner is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations was that though the loan had been availed on the basis of an agreement, payment has not been made as per the agreement. The complaint was forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C by the learned Magistrate. The police after completing the investigation filed a final report alleging commission of the offence under Section 420 I.P.C by the petitioner. Cognizance was taken. The petitioner entered appearance and staked the claim for discharge. The vehicle had been seized. Both the petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent did stake claims for release of the vehicle to them. All the questions were considered together and by the impugned order, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-A5, the learned Crl.M.C. No.4 of 2009 2 Magistrate came to the conclusion that the petitioner/accused is entitled for discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. Accordingly the accused was discharged. 2. The vehicle was seized from the possession of the petitioner/accused. The learned Magistrate had come to the conclusion that no offence has been established. But it is seen that the learned Magistrate directed that the vehicle be released to the financier-the 2nd respondent and not to the petitioner. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by that direction which, the impugned order clearly shows, is issued under Section 452 Cr.P.C after entering a specific finding that the accused is entitled for discharge. 3. According to the petitioner, the very complaint is only a clear abuse of process of the court. No offence was committed in respect of the vehicle. False allegations were raised and a crime was got registered. The vehicle was got seized by the police and produced before the learned Magistrate. The Magistrate is absolutely wrong in these circumstances in directing release of the vehicle to the 2nd respondent. The impugned order directing release under Section 452 Cr.P.C may be set aside, it is prayed. Crl.M.C. No.4 of 2009 3 4. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent raises a technical defence. The counsel submits that an order under Section 452 Cr.P.C is an appealable order and consequently the petitioner's attempt, to persuade this Court to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction, is unjustified and improper. I find merit in that contention. The impugned order, it is made clear, is one issued under Section 452 Cr.P.C. The petitioner is entitled to challenge the order by resort to Section 454 Cr.P.C. I am satisfied that the petitioner must be relegated to claim relief under Section 454 Cr.P.C and the attempt to request this Court to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction is not justified. 5. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that the interests of justice will be served eminently by issuing a direction that the vehicle shall not be released to the bank the 2nd respondent on the strength of the impugned order for a further period of 21 days from today. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner forthwith for production before the court below and the appellate court under Section 454 Cr.P.C. 6. This Crl.M.C is, accordingly dismissed with the above observations. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-