IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 11TH APRIL, 2011 / 21ST CHAITHRA, 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1048 of 2011 ------------------------------------ (AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP NO.336/2011 & 337/2011 OF THE JUDICAIL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-III, KOZHIKODE IN CRIME NO.194 OF 2011 OF KASABA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE) REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------- V.M.MUHAMMED IQBAL,AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.V.M.AHAMMED HAJI,THACHAMOYIL HOUSE, THAMARASSERY(VIA),VARIKKUNI PO,KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISH RESPONDENTS(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2. JYOTHILAL,S/O.M.K.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, MANAVALAN PARAMBA,CHEVAYUR PO,KOZHIKODE 673 017. 3. SREENIVASAN,S/O.GOPALAN NAIR, 'SURABHI',PALATH PO, KOZHIKODE 673 301. 4. THE MANAGER,SAKTHI FINANCE LTD, DOOR NO.5/2248 D,INDIRQA GANDHI ROAD, KOZHIKODE 673 004. R1 BY PUBIC PROSECUTOR SRI.DEVAPRASANTH.P.J. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA.C.NAYAR. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/04/2011, ALONG WITH CRL.R.P.NO.1049 OF 2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN,J. ---------------------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.Nos. 1048 & 1049 of 2011 --------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of April,2011 O R D E R As these two revision petitions are preferred by one and the same person and the parties are same and the challenge is against the common order passed by the trial court, these revision petitions are heard together and being disposed of by this common order. 2. Crl.R.P.No.1048 of 2011 is preferred against the common order dated 28.3.2011 in CMP Nos.336 & 337 of 2011 by the petitioner in CMP No.336 of 2011 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Kozhikode. CMP No.337 of 2011 is preferred by the first respondent in Crl.R.P.No.1049 of 2011. By the above common order, the learned Magistrate rejected the prayer of the revision petitioner and his petition for interim custody of the vehicle in question under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. whereas by the very same common order, the learned Magistrate allowed CMP No.337 of 2011 by which the prayer of the financier of the very same vehicle for Crl.R.PNos.1048 & 1049 of 2011 :-2-: interim custody under Section 451 was allowed. 3. Crime No.194 of 2011 is registered in the Kasaba Police Station, Kozhikode for the offence under Section 395 of I.P.C. based upon the allegation that the accused therein repossessed the stage carriage bus No. KL 11 T 9794 at about 3.30 p.m. on 8.3.2011 and thereby, committed the offence under Section 395 of I.P.C. The Police, after registration of the crime, seized the vehicle from the financier, the respondents herein on 15.3.2011. It is thereafter, the revision petitioner as well as the first respondent approached the learned Magistrate for interim custody of the vehicle. The above two claims, one preferred by the registered owner and one preferred by the financier were considered by the learned Magistrate and the Magistrate issued the impugned order as indicated above. It is against the above impugned order, the R.C.owner preferred these two Crl.R.Ps. 4. I have heard Sri.R.Sudhish, learned counsel appearing for the Crl.R.PNos.1048 & 1049 of 2011 :-3-: revision petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner as well as the first respondent submitted that the matter has been settled out of court and the financier has no grievance against the RC owner and he has no objection in allowing these Crl.R.Ps. and granting interim custody of the above vehicle in favour of the revision petitioner, who is the RC owner. 6. In this juncture, it is relevant to note that the above referred crime is pending before the concerned Police Station and so far, the dispute or allegation in the above crime has not been settled. If the dispute is settled between the concerned parties, it is open for them to approach the appropriate forum and to settle the dispute which is the subject matter in Crime No.194 of 2011 of the Kasaba Police Station. It is also relevant to note that by the impugned order, the learned Magistrate has granted only interim custody of the vehicle in favour of the financier. If that be so, according to me, as the financier has no Crl.R.PNos.1048 & 1049 of 2011 :-4-: objection in giving the interim custody of the vehicle to the revision petitioner/RC owner, these revision petitions can be disposed of. In the result, these Criminal Revision Petitions are disposed of setting aside the order dated 28.3.2011 in CMP Nos.336 & 337 of 2011 and allowing CMP No.336 of 2011 in favour of the revision petitioner and the vehicle shall be released to the revision petitioner, the R.C. owner as an interim measure on his executing a bond for `.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) along with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court and the petitioner is also directed to produce the photograph of the vehicle to the trial court. It is also made clear that the petitioner shall not alienate the vehicle or shall not do anything so as to diminish the value of the vehicle until further orders from the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Kozhikode and the petitioner shall produce the Crl.R.PNos.1048 & 1049 of 2011 :-5-: vehicle in the trial court or before the investigating officer as and when required. V.K.MOHANAN, MBS/ Judge. Crl.R.PNos.1048 & 1049 of 2011 :-6-: