IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2010 / 21ST ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 24573 of 2010(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- P.K.ANIL KUMAR, S/O. KARUNAKARA MENON, THOPPIL VEEDU, KANNANALLOOR.P.O., KOLLAM-691576. BY ADV. SRI.G.BHAGAVAT SINGH RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE CIRCE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PEERMADE, IDUKKI DIST. 2. VASANTHAMALA, W/O. CHURULINATHAN, PUTHUVAL, PUTHUKADU KARA, MAJUMALA VILLAGE, PEERMADE TALUK. 3. GOPI, S/O. KUNJUKUNJU, RBT(POPS) NELLIMALA ESTATE, PERIYAR VILLAGE, PEERMADE TALUK. 4. MANAGING DIRECTOR, SREERAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LTD., REGD OFFICE, 123, ANGAPPA NAICKEN STREET, CHENNAI-600001. ADV. SMT.MINI GANGADHARAN FOR R3 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.DILEEP MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.24573/10 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE SALE AGREEMENT DT 15.8.08 EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPIES OF THE RECEIPTS ISSUED BY THE 4TH respondent TO THE PETITIONER TOWARDS THE PAYMENT OF H.P.INSTALMENTS. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPAYMENT SCHEDULER. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE CMP DT 7.7.2010 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFOR ETHE J.F.M.C.II PEERMADE ON 8.7.2010. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 24573 OF 2010 (V) ===================== Dated this the 13th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims to be the agreement owner of a lorry bearing Regn.No.KL-5K-1693. According to the petitioner, through illegal means, the vehicle was seized by the 1st respondent. In this writ petition, he seeks a direction for its release. 2. It would appear that there are other controversies surrounding the hire purchase availed of by the registered owner of the vehicle from the 4th respondent. Petitioner seeks a direction to the 4th respondent to accept an amount of Rs.1,31,905/- and issue clearance certificate on that basis. However, 4th respondent is a private company which is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. In that view, the relief sought for by the petitioner is impermissible in this proceedings. 3. In so far as the prayer of the petitioner for release of the vehicle is concerned, learned Government Pleader on instruction submits that Ext.P4 complaint filed by the 2nd respondent before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, WPC No. 24573/10 :2 : Peerumede was forwarded to the Station House Officer, Vandiperiyar under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for investigation. It is stated that on its receipt, crime No.202/10 was registered and that the vehicle in question was also seized in pursuance thereof. It is stated that accordingly the vehicle was also produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Peerumede and is presently in the custody of the Vandiperiyar Police Station as thondi in the aforesaid case. 4. Thus the criminal case in respect of the vehicle in question is pending before the aforesaid Court and vehicle in question is also a thondi involved. Therefore, if at all the petitioner wants to get the vehicle released, it is for the petitioner to make an application to the aforesaid Court and it is for that court to consider the claim of the petitioner and pass orders thereon. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp