IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 585 of 2011() ------------------------ CC.616/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED --------------------------------------- ALEXANDER THOMAS, THIRUVALIL, PUNNAMOODU, MAVELIKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP SRI.V.SUNIL KUMAR (PANACHAMOODU) RESPONDENT/STATE & COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, EAST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR-680001. 3. SRI. RAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LTD., 1ST FLOOR, ARAFA TOWERS, VELIYANOOR ROAD, THRISSUR-21, REP. BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MANOJ. N.SREELAKAM, THACHAMPARA.P.O., MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD-678582. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.585 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 24th day of February, 2011 O R D E R First accused in Crime No.70 of 2007 of East police station, Thirssur and and C.C. No.616 of 2007 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Thrissur is the petitioner before me requesting to quash proceeding against him and also for a direction to the learned Magistrate to dispose of petitions for interim custody of the vehicle involved in the case. According to the learned counsel even if all the allegations are accepted what is involved is only a civil liability and hence prosecution cannot stand. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor also. 2. Offence attributed to the petitioner and others are under Sections 403, 406, 409 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It concerned a bus bearing KL-4/K-8798. Final report was filed as early as in 2007. A case was also filed in the year 2007. There is no reason why after about four years this Court should interfere under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence the request to quash proceeding at this stage CRL.M.C. No.585 of 2011 -: 2 :- cannot be entertained. 3. Learned counsel submitted that though petitioner and respondent No.3 have filed applications for interim custody of the vehicle those applications are not available in the trial court. Learned counsel invited my attention to Annexure-9, a notice issued by the learned Magistrate to the counsel for petitioner stating that claim petition preferred by the petitioner is not seen in the file and requiring the counsel to file a copy of the petition. Learned counsel submitted that copy of the claim petition was fled in the trial court and thereafter it has not been taken so far. I am told that the vehicle is getting damaged, lying idle in the premises of the trial court. If applications for interim custody have been preferred the same are to be disposed of as early as possible. Resultantly, Criminal Miscellaneous Case is disposed of directing learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Thrissur to dispose of the claim petitions filed by petitioner and respondent No.3 for interim custody of the vehicle as early as possible giving it top priority bearing in mind that the vehicle is kept idle for the CRL.M.C. No.585 of 2011 -: 3 :- last four years getting damaged and lost which is not beneficial to both parties. In case original petitions or copy are not available, petitioner and respondent No.3 shall be at liberty to file fresh petitions for interim custody of the vehicle. If such applications are filed the same shall be disposed of as early as possible giving it top priority. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv