IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 27TH BHADRA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1328 of 2009(A) -------------------------------------- [CMP.NOS.5321/2008, 4731/08 & 5213/08 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, VARKALA] .................... PETITIONER/ ACCUSED: ----------------------------------- MUHAMMED ALI, S/O. MOYIN, KARIBANGAN HOUSE, MONGAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL, SMT.AMBIKA RADHAKRISHNAN. RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. S.I. OF POLICE, VARKALA POLICE STATION. 3. I.C.I.C.I BANK LTD., REPRESENTED BY AGENCY MANAGER MR. NISHAD. 4. BIJU, S/O. NADARAJAN, GURUDEVAVILASAM VEEDU, KALLAMBALAM, OTTOOR VILLAGE, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SUDHEER, S/O. SHAFI, KILIYANVILAKAM VEEDU, VAKKOM VILLAGE. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. S.U. NAZAR, R3 BY ADVS. MR.K.K.M.SHERIF, MR.LAL K.JOSEPH, MR.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN, SMT.SHEENA SAMUEL. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/09/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.1328 of 2009 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner, the registered owner of Toyota Innova Car KL-16/D 1001, seized in Crime No. 250/2007 of Varkala Police Station, filed this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-1 order passed by Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Varkala, where under, interim custody of the vehicle was granted to the third respondent/financier, the petitioner in C.M.P.No.5321/2008, under Section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure, after dismissing C.M.P.No. 4731/2008, filed by the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and third respondent were heard. 3. Argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that third respondent is only a financier and petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle and in such circumstances, learned CRMC 1328/09 2 Magistrate should have granted interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner and not to the financier and at the time of purchase of the vehicle, the registration certificate does not show that there was any charge or any finance was given by the third respondent. 4. Under Annexure-1 order, after recording the evidence, learned Magistrate found that prima facie, transfer of the vehicle without showing the charge in favour of ICICI Bank, based on which, petitioner purchased the vehicle, is not genuine. The question whether petitioner is liable, if he is an innocent purchaser without the knowledge of the outstanding liability, is not a matter to be decided in this petition, which is only for interim custody of the vehicle. As registered owner is entitled to get a preference over the financier, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was directed to ascertain whether petitioner is prepared to give security for the value of the CRMC 1328/09 3 vehicle in order to grant interim custody of the vehicle to him. Learned counsel, on instructions, submitted that petitioner is not in a position to offer the sufficient security. In such circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with Annexure-1 order. Petition is dismissed. This order will not prevent the petitioner from approaching the civil court for appropriate remedy. 18th September, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv