IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2011 / 24TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1747 of 2011() ------------------------------- CMP.5685/2010 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, ATTINGAL (CMP.5684/2010) CRIME NO.466/2010 OF MANGALAPURAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ------------------------------ SHAMEEM, S/O.HAMEED, T.C.35/118, VALLAKKADAVU.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHAN V.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANGALAPURAM POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT.LTD., NOYAL HOUSE-9673, B-8, THRIKKAKARA, COCHIN. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAYASURYA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs CRMC. NO.1747/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A:COPY OF THE R.C. BOOK NO.2962213. ANNEXURE B:COPY OF THE R.C. BOOK NO.2637703. ANNEXURE C:COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 10/12/2010 IN C.M.P. NO.5685/2010 AND C.M.P. NO.5684/2010 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT - II, ATTINGAL. ANNEXURE D:COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.466/2010. ANNEXURE E:COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY MANGALAPURAM POLICE IN C.M.P. NO.5684/2010. ANNEXURE F:COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.729/2010 OF VANCHIYOOR POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE G:COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.MC. NO.5024/2011 DATED 17/02/2011. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.1747 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 14th day of June, 2011 ORDER Petitioner was originally accused in Crime No.466 of 2010 of Mangalapuram Police Station for offences punishable under Secs.120B, 465, 468, 471, 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. That case was registered on a complaint preferred by the de facto complainant to the Director General of Police. The vehicle involved was seized in the course of investigation. Petitioner sought interim custody of the vehicle. That request was rejected by the learned Magistrate which petitioner challenged in this Court in Crl.M.C.No.5024 of 2011. This Court disposed of that criminal miscellaneous case as per order dated February 17, 2011 observing that there is no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Magistrate but, making it clear that the said order or the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate will not stand in the way of petitioner seeking relief after investigation of the case is completed. Learned counsel submitted that investigation is not so far completed and if the vehicle remaining idle it will get damaged and lost. Crl.M.C.No.1747 of 2011 -: 2 :- 2. Crl.M.C.No.5024 of 2011 was disposed of by this Court on February 17, 2011. Petitioner has not moved the court below either for a direction to the investigating officer to complete investigation at the earliest or seeking custody of the vehicle (obviously for the reason that this Court directed that petitioner could move such application after investigation of the case is over). If investigation takes time, I think, petitioner must be permitted to move appropriate application before the learned Magistrate notwithstanding the observation I have made in the order dated February 17, 2011 in Crl.M.C.No.5024 of 2011. But, since petitioner has not moved any application before the learned Magistrate I am not inclined to entertain this petition as if this Court is to decide the question whether petitioner is entitled to interim custody. Resultantly this criminal miscellaneous case is disposed of in the following lines: (i) Petitioner may move application before the learned Magistrate to issue necessary direction to the officer investigating the case to expedite investigation and submit final report. (ii) In case it is found that investigation cannot be completed in the near future, I make it clear that notwithstanding the observation I have made in the order dated February 17, 2011 in Crl.M.C.No.5024 of 2011 it will be open to the Crl.M.C.No.1747 of 2011 -: 3 :- petitioner to move learned Magistrate for interim custody of the vehicle and if any such request is made learned Magistrate shall consider the application with notice to the de facto complainant as well and pass appropriate orders as circumstances warranted. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-