IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2010 / 22ND SRAVANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 3103 of 2010() ------------------------- CMP.4775/2010 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, ATTINGAL .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER ------------------------- K.B.REGHUNATHAN, S/O.BHASKARAN, KALLIDAMATHAYIL BHAVANAM, THEVALLICHIRAYIL MURI, KOLLAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.RENJITHKUMAR RESPONDENTS/COUNTER PETITIONER --------------------------------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ATTINGAL POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 695101. 2. SHAMSUDEEN, S/O.SHAHUL HAMEED, AGED 59 YEARS, JASMINE MANZIL, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 101. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. B.JAYASURYA SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/08/2010 ALONG WITH CRMC NO. 3267 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. --------------------------- Crl.M.C. Nos. 3103 & 3267 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of August, 2010 O R D E R Both these Crl.MCs are filed by the second accused in Crime No.865 of 2010 of Attingal Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code, which is now pending in investigation. The above crime was registered on a complaint presented before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Attingal by the common second respondent and that complaint was referred to police for investigation and report under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Theft over a motor vehicle, allegedly belonging to the second respondent, was the case of the complainant which led to the registration of the crime. The petitioner herein contends that by virtue of a sale agreement, he became the owner of the motor vehicle. Both parties filed applications before the Magistrate Under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. seeking interim custody of the motor vehicle after its seizure by the investigating agency. The learned Magistrate after hearing both sides has passed orders separately on the applications filed by the petitioner (second accused) and second respondent (complainant) by which interim custody of the vehicle was given to the complainant subject to the conditions imposed. Propriety, legality and correctness of the order so passed is challenged by the petitioner/second accused. Crl.M.C Nos.3103 & 3267/2010 2 2. I heard the counsel on both sides. 3. Having regard to the submissions made, and also after perusing the orders passed by the learned Magistrate impugned in theses petitions, I find a reconsideration of the entire matter to advance the ends of justice is required. The learned Magistrate has dismissed the claim raised by the petitioner/second accused as seen from the order challenged in Crl.M.C. No.3103 of 2010 for the sole reason that already an order had been passed allowing the claim raised over the vehicle by the complainant. A perusal of the order passed by the Magistrate allowing the claim of the complainant, which is impugned in Crl.M.C. No.3267 of 2010, shows that the rival claims of the parties have not been looked into but merely stating that on considering the “facts and circumstances” the vehicle can be given on interim custody to the complainant. What are such facts and circumstances is not spelt out in the order. A detailed order analysing the ownership of the vehicle involved in the crime is not expected from the Magistrate nor it is called for, while considering the application for interim custody under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. However, when both sides have set up rival claims producing documents advertence to such documents to the extent necessary at least for the prime facie satisfaction as to whose claim is entertainable for granting interim custody of the vehicle involved in the crime is absolutely essential, and an order passed granting interim Crl.M.C Nos.3103 & 3267/2010 3 custody without assigning any reason whatsoever can never be sustained. 4. So much so, the orders impugned in both Criminal MCs are liable to be quashed. However, I make it clear that the interim custody of the vehicle granted to the complainant by virtue of the order passed by the Magistrate on 31.7.2010 shall continue to be in force till the petitions are considered afresh and orders are passed by the learned Magistrate taking note of the observations made above, and in accordance with law. There will be a further direction to the Magistrate to consider and dispose of the applications, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Criminal M.Cs are disposed of as above. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, (JUDGE) vps Crl.M.C Nos.3103 & 3267/2010 4 Crl.M.C Nos.3103 & 3267/2010 5