IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2008 / 26TH POUSHA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 3419 of 2005() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07/03/2005 IN CMP.2002/05 AND CMP.1987/2005 IN CRIME NO. 68/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHAVAKKAD .................... PETITIONER: ------------ FATHIMA MOIDUNNY, W/O.MOIDUNNY, BASHEER MANZIL, MANATHALA NORTH, CHAVAKKAD PO, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SHRIRAM INVESTMENTS LTD,, REPRESENTED BY FIELD EXECUTIVE ROMEO V.JAYASREE, S/O.JAYARAMADAS, MODERN TOWER, VADAKKANCHERRY ROAD KUNNAMKULAM P.O. THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.HARIKUMAR SRI. K.S. SIVAKUMAR, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/01/2008, ALONG WITH CRL.MC NO. 3509 OF 2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ================================= CRL.M.C. Nos. 3419 of 2005 & 3509 of 2007 ================================= Dated this the 16th day of January, 2008. ORDER Crl. M.C. No. 3419/2005 is filed by the de facto complainant in C.C. No. 55/2006 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chavakkad challenging the common order dated 07.03.2005 passed by the Magistrate dismissing the application for interim custody filed by the petitioner herein and allowing the application for interim custody filed by the financier. Crl. M.C. No. 3509/2007 is filed by the financier challenging the rejection of Annexure A4 application filed pending trial seeking permission to sell the vehicle which was entrusted to the financier as per the common order referred to above. 2. When these Crl.M.Cs came up for final hearing today, it was represented that C.C. No. 55/2006 itself has ended in acquittal of the accused. If so, the legality of the interim custody granted under Section 451 Cr.P.C is no more relevant. The petition filed by the financier for seeking sale of the vehicle is CRL. M.C. Nos. 3419/2005 & 3509/2007 : 2 : also no more relevant. What is now called for is a final disposal with regard to the vehicle for which the appropriate remedy is under Section 452 Cr.P.C. While the financier has filed Crl. M.P. No. 11624/2007 before the trial court under Section 452 Cr.P.C, the de facto complainant has not filed any petition under Section 452 Cr.P.C. Hence, these Crl. M.Cs are disposed of permitting the parties to move the Magistrate for final order under Section 452 Cr.P.C with regard to the vehicle in question. The Magistrate while passing final orders under Section 452 Cr.P.C shall not be trammeled by the observations and findings in the orders passed under Section 451 Cr.P.C and shall independently consider the contentions raised on behalf of either side and pass final orders. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv CRL. M.C. Nos. 3419/2005 & 3509/2007 : 3 :