IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2007 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 1793 of 2007() ------------------------- CMP.1413/2007 IN CRIME 3317/07 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- P.N.RAJESH KUMR,PROPRIETOR, GLOBAL ENGINEERING SYSTEM AND SERVICE, DOOR NO.46/1934,THACHETH LINE,KALOOR,KOCHI-17. BY ADV. SRI.S.SACHITHANANDA PAI RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/06/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 1793 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5th day of June, 2007 O R D E R The petitioner's vehicle was allegedly taken into custody by the police on the ground that it was left abandoned obstructing traffic on a busy public street. The police recovery van had removed the vehicle to the premises of the police station. According to the petitioner, it was high handed action on the part of the police. The petitioner was physically present. There was no obstruction to the traffic. The petitioner was willing to pay any amount of fine which he is legally liable to pay. But unfortunately the police had, ignoring the protests of the petitioner, decided to take the vehicle to the police station. Unreasonable demands were made. The petitioner had immediately filed W.P.C. 15661 of 2007 complaining about the illegal removal. That writ petition is pending. 2. Be that as it may, the petitioner simultaneously prayed for release of the vehicle to him under Section 451 Cr.P.C. after the vehicle was produced before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate, by the impugned order, rejected the said application on Crl.M.C.No. 1793 of 2007 2 the short ground that W.P.C. 15661 of 2007 for the same purpose is pending. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that though the same relief was claimed in the writ petition also, there are other reliefs also claimed in the writ petition. To be on the safer side and to ensure that there is no unnecessary loss of time, petition for release of the vehicle was filed before the learned Magistrate after the seizure was reported to the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate was not correct in dismissing the M.C. for the reason that identical relief is claimed in the writ petition. 4. Notice was given. The learned Prosecutor submits that the State has no objection in the vehicle being released to the petitioner. The mere pendency of W.P.C. 15661 of 2007 need not be reckoned as an impediment for the disposal of the application under Section 451 Cr.P.C. In the total absence of objection from any one, I am satisfied that the request of the petitioner can be accepted. I find the same to be absolutely reasonable. There is no contention for anyone that the petitioner is not the person entitled for possession of the vehicle. Crl.M.C.No. 1793 of 2007 3 5. This Crl.M.C. is accordingly allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The learned Magistrate shall release the vehicle to the petitioner on condition that he executes a bond for Rs. 2 Lakhs without any surety undertaking to produce the vehicle as and when necessary. He shall produce before the learned Magistrate for his perusal and return all documents to show that he is the owner entitled for possession of the vehicle. The petitioner's right to further prosecute W.P.C. 15661 of 2007 shall remain unfettered by the disposal of this Crl.M.C. 6. Hand over the order. (R. BASANT) Judge tm