IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 25TH BHADRA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 3687 of 2010(C) ------------------------------- (CMP.5784/2010 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, TIRUR) .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------- HANEEFA,S/O.MOHAMMED,PUNNAPPURA THODI HOUSE,KADAMPUZHA AMSOM,MELMURI DESOM,TIRUR TALUK,MALAPPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN SRI.P.G.SURESH SMT.K.VIDYA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,TIRUR,THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: SVS/ M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3687 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-A7 order passed by Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Tirur dismissing C.M.P.No.5784/2010 filed by the petitioner to release Rs.25,000/- deposited by him as per order in C.M.P.No.6790/2008 to get the vehicle released under Section 451 of Code of Criminal procedure. Case of the petitioner is that by Annexure-A3 order, District Collector had directed to release the vehicle to the petitioner on deposit of Rs.60,000/- and a penalty of Rs.60,000/- and by Annexure-A5 order, District Collector had directed to stop the proceedings in respect of the seizure of Lorry KL-10/S 3440, thereby compounding the offence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public prosecutor were heard. CRMC 3687/10 2 3. Petitioner has not produced any material to show the details of the vehicle or the date of seizure of the vehicle. The order dated 18.11.2008 by which the vehicle was released directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.25,000/- is also not produced. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that as per Annexure-A5 order, what was compounded is the offence culminated on seizure of the vehicle on 27.9.2008 and Annexure-A3 order shows that the seizure involved was on 29.9.2009. Learned Public prosecutor submitted that in respect of the two seizures, two separate crimes were registered, namely, Crime No.1074/2008, which was taken cognizance as S.T.No.1762/2009 and Crime No. 838/2009, which was taken cognizance as C.C.No. 958/2009. In such circumstances, without establishing that what was compounded under Annexure-A5 order, was the offence with regard to the subject matter of S.T.No.1762/2009, petitioner is not entitled to get the amount released. CRMC 3687/10 3 Petition is dismissed. It is made clear that dismissal of the petition will not be a bar to claim back the amount, if the offence in respect of the vehicle was compounded. 16th September, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv