IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2009 / 18TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 260 of 2006() ------------------------ CMP.4695/04 IN CMP.2047/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, SASTHAMCOTTA .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER: --------------------------- C.K.MADHAVAN PIALLI, CHANDRIKABHAVANAM, EDACKADU MURI, PORUVAZHY VILLAGE, KUNNATHOOR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.G.RENGANATH RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS & STATE ------------------------------------------------ 1. SURESH, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN, SUNIL BHAVANAM, CHERUKUNNAM WARD, PALLICKAL PANCHAYATH, ADOOR TALUK. 2. THANKACHAN, CHARUVILA VADAKKATHIL, EDAVANASSERI, MYNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.K.G.UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR FOR R2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI THOMAS JOHN AMBOOKKEN FOR R3 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.468/06 IN CRL.M.C.NO.260/06 //DISMISSED// 8.1.09 SD/-M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. M.C. HARI RANI, J. ====================== CRL.M.C.NO. 260 of 2006 ========================= Dated this the 8TH DAY OF JANJUARY 2009 ORDER This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to set aside Annexure-A order and to direct the court below to take steps for surrender of vehicle, KL-2C/9295 and to handover custody of the same to the petitioner herein. 2. The case of the petitioner as revealed from the statement of facts mentioned in this petition is that the petitioner is the registered owner of Tata lorry bearing registration Number KL- 2C/9295. On 1-3-1999, an agreement was executed between the petitioner and the first respondent whereby that vehicle was agreed to be sold to the first respondent for a total consideration of Rs.2,13,000/-. At that time, the first respondent paid an advance amount of Rs. 50,000/- and the vehicle was handed over to the first respondent on that day itself. The first respondent CRMC.260/2006 -2- agreed to pay the balance consideration of Rs.1,63,000/- within 30 days by remitting the C.C. amount pending in the Sasthamcotta Agriculture and Rural Development Bank to which the vehicle was hypothecated. Subsequently, the first respondent transferred the vehicle to the second respondent against the terms of the agreement with an intention to cheat the petitioner. Therefore, a lawyer notice was issued at the instance of the petitioner to the first respondent claiming re- possession of the vehicle. Since the first respondent did not comply with the demand, the petitioner filed a complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Sasthamcotta against respondents 1 and 2 alleging offences punishable under Sections 406, 418,420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal code, which was numbered as C.M.P.No.2047/2004. In pursuance of a search warrant issued by the lower court, the said vehicle was seized and produced before the court below. The petitioner filed C.M.P.No.4695/2004 for interim custody of the vehicle. The first respondent contested that petition. Thereafter, the petitioner was examined as PW1 and the first respondent was examined as DW1. Annexure-A is the certified copy of that order passed by CRMC.260/2006 -3- the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Sasthamotta in C.M.P.No.4695/2004 in C.M.P.No.2047/2004 whereby the interim custody of the vehicle was given to the first respondent herein and that order has been challenged by the petitioner herein by filing this petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. No argument was advanced for respondents 1 and 2. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor for the third respondent. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle and that the first respondent has not complied with the conditions in the agreement executed between the petitioner and the first respondent on 1-3-1999. As per Annexure-A1 order, interim custody of the vehicle was given to the first respondent, who is using the vehicle for illegal activities. Accordingly, the petitioner apprehends that he will be held liable for the illegal activities of the first respondent for the reason that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle. 5. It is revealed from the allegations in the petition that the conditions in the agreement dated 1-3-1999 was to pay the CRMC.260/2006 -4- balance amount under the hire purchase agreement by the first respondent to Sasthamcotta Agricultural Rural Development Bank to which the vehicle was hypothecated. According to the first respondent, he has paid the entire balance amount and produced Ext.D2 series to substantiate the same. It is found by the learned Magistrate that though the petitioner herein has alleged in the petition that he has paid the balance amount due to the Bank under the hire purchase agreement, no evidence has been adduced by him to establish the same and to prove that any amount was paid by him in the concerned bank after the sale agreement dated 1-3-1999. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate allowed the petition, C.M.P.No.4695/2004 and interim custody of the vehicle was given to the first respondent on conditions as per order dated 12-12-2005. I find no illegality in that order and accordingly no interference is required. Therefore, there is no merit in this petition. The Crl.M.C. is dismissed. M.C. HARI RANI JUDGE ks.