IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 28TH MAGHA 1932 CRL.MC.NO. 503 OF 2011() ---------------------------------------- CMP.108/2011 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, PONNANI .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER -------------------------------------------- K.P.ABDULLAKUTTY, S/O.KHADER, AGED 35 YEARS, KANNAYIL PARAMBIL HOUSE, PERUMPADAMBA P.O., MALAPPURAM - 679576. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM REP. BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PONNANI POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.503 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 17th day of February, 2011 O R D E R Petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure-I, order dated January 20, 2011 in C.M.P. No.108 of 2011 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ponnani in Crime No.480 of 2001 of Ponnani police station. That petition was preferred by the petitioner under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requesting to release vehicle No.KL-2/P-9779. That application was opposed by the Investigating Agency. Accepting the objection learned Magistrate dismissed the application. It is contended that if the vehicle is kept idle it will be damaged. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also. 2. It is seen from the order under challenge that the Investigation Officer has reported that the vehicle is involved in Crime Nos.480 and 536 of 2010 involving offences under Sections 347, 395, 384, and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 67 of the IT Act and investigating agency suspects that the vehicle is a stolen property and the registration number and engine number are forged. It was also reported that forensic expert has CRL.M.C. No.503 of 2011 -: 2 :- examined the vehicle but the report has not so far received. It is further reported that since investigation is not completed release of the vehicle would affect the investigation. 3. Learned Magistrate considered the objections and observed that considering the present stage of investigation the request for release of the vehicle cannot be allowed. Having heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and considering the objections made by the Investigating Agency I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. However I make it clear that this order or the impugned order will not stand in the way of petitioner making fresh application after investigation is over if he is otherwise entitled to get custody of the vehicle. Criminal Miscellaneous Case is dismissed with the above observation. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv