IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2009 / 31ST BHADRA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 664 of 2009() --------------------------------- CMP.5016/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, CHANGANACHERRY .................... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- P.J. SABU, S/O.LATE JOHN, POOVANTHRA HOUSE, POLACHIRA BHAGAM, CHINGAVANAM POST, NATTAKOM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.P.KURUVILLA JACOB MR.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE S.I OF POLICE, CHINGAVANAM POLICE STATION, CHINGAVANAM POST, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. THE TRAVANCORE CREDIT CORPORATION, BAKER JUNCTION, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 3. BENNY KURIAKOSE, S/O.KURIAKOSE, THONDUKUZHIYIL HOUSE, POLACHIA BHAGAM, CHINGAVANAM POST, NATTAKOM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 & R4 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.S.U. NAZAR. R2 BY ADV. MR.PHILIP T.VARGHESE, MR.THOMAS T.VARGHESE. R3 BY ADV. MR.V.B.UNNIRAJ, SMT.R.S.GEETHA. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO. 664 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 22nd September 2009 O R D E R Petitioner filed a private complaint against respondents 2 and 3 alleging that they committed offences under Sections 467, 468, 406, 478 and 120 B of Indian Penal Code. It was sent for investigation under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Changanacherry and Crime No.529/2008 was registered. After investigation first respondent filed a refer report. Petitioner filed C.M.P.1575/2009, a protest complaint under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure for a direction to investigate the case further. As per Annexure-A13 order, learned Magistrate directed further investigation. Petitioner then filed C.M.P.5016/2008 under Section 94 of Code of Criminal Procedure to seize the vehicle alleging that second respondent financier took away the vehicle and thereafter entrusted it to the third respondent and third respondent dismantled the vehicle and thereby WPC 664/09 2 respondents 2 and 3 committed the offences. It is contended that the vehicle belonged to the petitioner and breach of trust was committed by respondents 2 and 3, and in any case, the investigating officer should have seized the vehicle and as it is not done, petitioner sought an order to seize the vehicle. Under Annexure-A order learned Magistrate dismissed the prayer for seizure but ordered further investigation. This petition is filed challenging the order rejecting the prayer for seizure. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner and respondents were heard. 3. Learned counsel argued that when it is the specific case of the petitioner that respondents 2 and 3 committed breach of trust and second respondent illegally handed over the vehicle to the third respondent and third respondent dismantled the vehicle by alienating its valuable parts, the vehicle should have been seized and produced before the court and as it is not done, an appropriate direction is to be issued. 4. On hearing the learned counsel, I find no reason to interfere with the order. Learned Magistrate is not inquiring the case as provided under WPC 664/09 3 Section 202 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Instead the case was originally sent for investigation under Section 156(3) and when refer report was filed disagreeing with the conclusion arrived at by the investigating officer, further investigation was ordered. It is for the investigating officer to decide whether the seizure of the vehicle is necessary or not. For the reason that petitioner has a case that parts of the vehicle are dismantled, it is not incumbent upon the Magistrate to order seizure. It is made clear that if the investigating officer wants seizure of the vehicle, he is at liberty to seize the vehicle and conduct any investigation as warranted. With said observation, petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.