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.11177 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, Sathankulam Police Station, Tuticorin District. ... Respondent/Complainant 2.P.Kumarraj ... 2nd Respondent This petition is preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C to permit the petitioner for sale of vehicle bearing Reg.No.TN 69 S 0871 which is under the hypothecation and the custody of the petitioner company and to direct the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam, Tuticorin District to return the Registration certificate of the said vehicle in M.C.No.9 of 2010. For Petitioner :Mr.M.Sankar For Respondent :Mr.P.Kannithevan,Govt.Advocate(Crl.Side) No.1 ORDER Seeking a direction to permit the petitioner to sell the vehicle bearing Regn.No.TN 69 S 0871 which is under hypothecation and the custody of the petitioner company and direct the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam to return the Registration Certificate of the said vehicle connected to the case in M.C.No.9 of 2010, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam, the petitioner has come up with this petition. 2.According to the petitioner, the vehicle mentioned above is under hypothecation agreement with the petitioner company. The said vehicle was stolen away. A case was registered for an offence punishable under Section 380 of I.P.C and the same is pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam. Before the lower court, on an application filed by the petitioner, the said vehicle was handed over to the petitioner company. Whileso, the petitioner has come up with this petition seeking a relief as mentioned above. 3.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 already imposed 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. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4.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. 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/ DEPUTY REGISTRAR(ACCOUNTS) /TRUE COPY / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR. Vs To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam, Tuticorin District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Sathankulam Police Station, Tuticorin District. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 1CC TO M/s.M.Sankar, Advocate, SR.No.35373/11 sb 04/11/2011 2p 5c Crl.O.P.(md).No.11177 of 2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/