IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2009 / 1ST SRAVANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2380 of 2009 -------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP.1372/2008 AND CMP.5741/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, NEDUMANGAD (CRIME NO.532/2007 OF NEDUMANGAD POLICE STATION) .................... PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ ANIL KUMAR, S/O. CHANDRASEKHARAN, KALIDUKKIL VEEDU, KANNARAMKODE, KARIPOORU VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR SRI.P.P.BIJU SRI.NITHIN JACOB RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. MUHAMMED HASKER, S/O.MUSTHAFA, VETTICHIRAYIL, KUTTIPURATHODY HOUSE, KARIPOL P.O., MALAPPURAM DIST. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.B.VINOD. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No. 2380 OF 2009 =========================== Dated this the 23rd day of July,2009 ORDER This petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure II order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Nedumangad granting interim custody of Maruti Alto Car bearing reg. No.KL 02 X 5020 to the second respondent. Learned Magistrate originally granted interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner which was challenged before this court by the second respondent. Under Annexure I order, the order of the learned Magistrate was set aside and learned Magistrate was directed to consider the claim raised by the petitioner as well as the second respondent afresh. It is thereafter Annexure II order was passed. Case of the petitioner is that a loan of Rs.1,50,000/- was availed of by the accused and the vehicle is a charge for that loan and in such circumstance learned Magistrate should have granted interim custody to the petitioner and should not have granted to the second respondent especially when there is dispute with regard to the genuineness of the Crl.M.C.2380/2009 2 R.C. 2. On hearing the learned counsel, I find no reason to interfere with Annexure 2 order. Even if the case of the petitioner is accepted, his claim could only be for Rs.1,50,000/- advanced to the accused along with its interest which would be a charge on the vehicle. That will not enable the petitioner to get interim custody of the vehicle, when custody of the vehicle was with the second respondent. With liberty to seek appropriate remedy available on the charge if any, the petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006