IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2009 / 19TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 34160 of 2008(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MUKU NARSI REDDY, F 404 SATELLITE PARK, M.CAVES ROAD, JOGESHWARI, MUMBAI - 60, MAHARASHTRA. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNDARA CIRCLE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNDARA POLICE STATION. 4. SENIOR INSPECTOR OF POLICE, JAGESHWARI POLICE STATION, MUMBAI 0 60, MAHARASHTRA. 5. JIJI, S/O.JAMES, HOUSE NO.4/331, PARAYIL LEKSHAM VEEDU COLONY, PERAYAM, KOLLAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.GIKKU JACOB FOR R1 TO 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ W.P(C). No.34160 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT The short grievance of the petitioner is that the officials of the Kerala Police are not extending the required support to the police from Jogeswary Police Station, Mumbai, who want to seize a vehicle which is now in the possession of the 5th respondent. The vehicle allegedly belonged originally to the petitioner herein and the same was thieved. About that theft, a complaint was filed. An F.I.R was registered. After initial investigation, the case was closed as undetected. But later, on receipt of information that the stolen vehicle is available in Kerala, the crime registered in Maharashtra was re-opened and investigation is said to be in progress. The 4th respondent has allegedly come to Kerala to effect seizure of the vehicle. It was complained that the local police did not extend the requisite support. This allegedly was done by the local police in collusion with the 5th respondent. The 5th respondent filed a Writ Petition complaining about harassment by the police. The police reported before the Division Bench that they have no intention to W.P(C). No.34160 of 2008 2 harass the 5th respondent. The petitioner has come to this Court complaining that taking advantage of the proceedings before the Division Bench, the 2nd and 3rd respondents are not discharging their legal and statutory obligation to co-operate with the 4th respondent to effect seizure of the property. 2. By order dated 05.12.08, the 2nd respondent was directed to file an affidavit explaining the action taken so far. A statement was directed to be filed. The statement has been filed and it is now reported that the vehicle in question is available with the Kundara Police. The petitioner herein has an R.C book. The 5th respondent has also an R.C book. Both R.C books would suggest that they relate to the same vehicle which is in the custody of the Kundara Police. The learned Government Pleader on behalf of the Kundara Police submits that no one has so far staked claim over the vehicle. The learned Government Pleader submits that the Maharashtra police has not approached the Kundara Police for custody of the vehicle and in these circumstances the vehicle is continuing in the custody of the Kundara Police. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it may be made clear that the Maharashtra police can take W.P(C). No.34160 of 2008 3 necessary action in accordance with law now in respect of the vehicle which is now admitted to be in the custody of the Kundara police. I am not called upon in this petition to decide whether such custody is proper or not or whether the Maharashtra police is entitled to seize the vehicle. I need only mention that it is reported to me that the vehicle is in the custody of the Kundara Police and that the Kundara Police is waiting for the Maharashtra police to contact them for necessary further action if any. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he shall do the needful to ensure that the 4th respondent proceeds to take appropriate further action in the matter. 5. The above submissions of the parties are recorded and this Writ Petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed without any further specific direction. 6. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-