IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2009 / 2ND MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4587 of 2008(C) -------------------------------------- (CR. NO. 831/08 OF KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION) ........... PETITIONER: ------------------- MINI, AGED 34 YEARS, D/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, KAVALPURA THODIYIL PUTHEN VEEDU, ERAVIPURAM P.O. KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.R.ASWAS. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. NAJEEB, POCHIKOTTU PUTHEN VEEDU, VAZHIMUKKU, THALAYIL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.4587 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2009 ORDER Petitioner, a woman, is the registered owner of a Maruti Zen car. She has a strained relationship with her husband. She alleged that on 06.07.08, her husband along with a friend of his committed theft of the car which was parked in her premises. She filed a private complaint. The same was referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Crime was registered. Investigation commenced. The vehicle was seized from the possession of the 2nd respondent herein. The seizure was reported to the court. The vehicle was produced before court. An application was filed by the petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent for release of the vehicle to their respective custody. 2. The 2nd respondent took the stand that the petitioner and her husband together had approached one vehicle broker Sabu and had wanted a loan of Rs.1 lakh. It was contended that the said Sabu along with the petitioner and her husband had contacted the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent on security of the vehicle had advanced the said amount of Rs.1 lakh retaining the vehicle and all its documents as security. Crl.M.C. No.4587 of 2008 2 3. The learned Magistrate considered the rival claims. The learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the 2nd respondent herein is entitled to possession of the vehicle. According to the petitioner, the vehicle was removed by her husband dishonestly along with the documents like registration certificate etc. which were available in the car and false documents were created and concocted in collusion with the 2nd respondent to stake such a claim for possession of the car. 4. The learned Magistrate directed release of the car in favour of the 2nd respondent primarily on the ground that he was able to produce documents relating to the car including the registration certificate. According to the petitioner, the other documents are forged and the forged documents (along with the original documents which were available in the car) were being used by the 2nd respondent to stake his claim for possession of the vehicle. The vehicle was directed to be released to the 2nd respondent subject to conditions, inter alia, that a bond for Rs.5 lakhs with 2 solvent sureties must be executed. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. The learned Public Prosecutor has also been heard. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the Crl.M.C. No.4587 of 2008 3 investigation at the moment reveals commission of the crime and the State hence supports the claim of the petitioner herein. 6. I have considered all the relevant inputs. That the respondent is the registered owner of the vehicle is undisputed. The 2nd respondent has a claim that the petitioner along with her husband who is arrayed as the 1st accused had taken the vehicle with all documents to the 2nd respondent and handed over the same as security. I shall not at the moment go into the question whether the documents relied on by the 2nd respondent are genuine or forged. That question will have to be decided in the course of investigation and with the help of further materials to be collected. But I find force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The contention of the 2nd respondent even if accepted in toto, his claim is only as the person who is holding the vehicle as security. He has no case that the vehicle belongs to him. At best what the 2nd respondent can insist is that there may be adequate security for the amount allegedly advanced by him to the petitioner. In this view of the matter, I feel that the interests of justice will be served ideally by directing release of the vehicle to the petitioner subject of course to the result of the proceedings finally. But at the same time Crl.M.C. No.4587 of 2008 4 considering the nature of the plea advanced by the 2nd respondent, I am satisfied that adequate security must be insisted to secure the repayment of the amount to the 2nd respondent if ultimately his case were found to be correct. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that this Crl.M.C can be allowed subject of course to appropriate conditions. 7. In the result: a) This Crl.M.C is allowed; b) The impugned common order is set aside; c) It is directed that the vehicle in question shall be released to the petitioner herein on the following terms and conditions: i) She shall execute a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate; ii) She shall in addition to condition No.1 deposit an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) before the court below or produce bank guarantee for the said amount or produce a Fixed Deposit receipt for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) issued by any nationalised bank with lien in favour of the curt noted thereon; Crl.M.C. No.4587 of 2008 5 iii) In the bond to be executed by the petitioner, the petitioner shall undertake to make the amount of Rs.2 lakhs available (or such other lesser amount as may be directed by the learned Magistrate) as and when directed by the learned Magistrate; iv) When the above conditions are satisfied by the petitioner, the learned Magistrate shall direct the 2nd respondent to surrender the vehicle to the learned Magistrate and thereupon the 2nd respondent shall surrender the vehicle within a period of 3 days and the vehicle shall be released to the petitioner. At the culmination of the proceedings, appropriate directions shall be issued by the learned Magistrate on the basis of the facts of the case. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-