IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 389 of 2011(C) ------------------------------------ [CRIME NO.211/2010 OF BINANIPURAM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT] .................. PETITIONER: ------------------- AZEEZ V.A., S/O. ALIYAR, 10/71, VELANTEPARAMBU, WEST KADUNGALLUR. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BINANIPURAM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.389 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 24th day of February, 2011 ORDER Petitioner challenges Annexure-A3, notice issued by the Sub Inspector, Binanipuram on 03.02.2011 directing him to produce a stage carriage bus bearing No.KL-06/B-4037 before that officer on 03.02.2011 in connection with crime No.211 of 2010. According to the petitioner, notice issued is illegal and unnecessary since the vehicle is not involved in any offence, nor is it a material object in Crime No.211 of 2010. Learned counsel submitted that the said vehicle is the livelihood of petitioner and if it is detained in the Police Station, that would adversely affect petitioner and the public. 2. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that notice was issued for production of the vehicle in connection with investigation of the case. 3. Learned counsel has given me a copy of the complaint filed in the Court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Paravur based on which Binanipuram police registered Crime No.211 of 2010. That complaint is filed by one Jayasree against Crl.M.C.No.389 of 2011 -: 2 :- three persons (who does not include petitioner) alleging commission of offence punishable under Sec.420 r/w Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegation is that accused Nos.1 to 3 representing that they are the owners in possession of the stage carrier referred above and another vehicle induced de facto complainant to join a partnership for operating the said vehicles offering to give share of profit to the de facto complainant and gave her an undertaking that the said vehicles or its permit will not be transferred without her knowledge. Accordingly the de facto complainant herself and husband entrusted Rupees Five Lakhs with the first accused on 01.12.2007 and the first accused handed over the amount to the third accused. An agreement also was executed setting out terms and conditions agreed between the parties but the first accused did not give share of profits to the de facto complainant and thereby cheated her. It is with reference to the investigation of the said offence that the Sub Inspector issued Annexure-A3, notice to the petitioner to cause production of the vehicle. Sec.91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states that whenever any Court or any other officer in charge of a police station considers that production of any document or other thing is necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code by or before such Court or officer, such Court Crl.M.C.No.389 of 2011 -: 3 :- may issue a summons, or such officer a written order, to the person in whose possession or power such document or thing is believed to be, requiring him to attend and produce it, or to produce it, at the time and place stated in the summons or order. 4. Contention advanced by learned counsel is that the offence alleged is only under Sec.420 of the Penal Code allegation being that complainant was not given her share of profits in the alleged partnership business as agreed and as against the terms of agreement vehicle involved was transferred. I am not persuaded to think that the offence relates to the vehicle involved so that, it was not necessary to take the vehicle to custody. Presently, I do not find reason to think that it is necessary to take the vehicle to custody. May be, it is sufficient that petitioner produced the records relating to the vehicle before the Sub Inspector. But, I make it clear that if in the course of investigation any offence vis-a-vis the vehicle is revealed it is open to the Sub Inspector to issue fresh notice to the petitioner under Sec.91 of the Code. Resultantly this petition is allowed and Annexure-A3, notice issued by the Sub Inspector, Binanipuram is quashed. This order will not prevent the Sub Inspector from directing petitioner to produce vehicular records or, if in the course of investigation of the case it is found that any offence is committed with respect to Crl.M.C.No.389 of 2011 -: 4 :- the vehicle involved, in issuing fresh notice to the petitioner for production of the vehicle as provided under law. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-