IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY MONDAY, THE 1ST AUGUST 2011 / 10TH SRAVANA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 2772 of 2006() -------------------------------------- CC.602/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MALAPPURAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED -------------------------------------- 1. ABDUL AZEEZ, AGED 43 YEARS, KERALA AUTOMOBILE PVT. LTD., MANJERI. 2. DILEEP KUMAR, AGED 45 YEARS, VAIKUNDA VADIYAR STREET, SOWCARPET, MADRAS-79. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT 0F KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARUVARAKKUNDU POLICE STATION, KARUVARAKKUNDU. 3. HASSAN HAJI, S/O.KUNHI MUHAMMED, RESIDING AT MUTTENGADAN HOUSE, CHELOOR, KODUR, MALAPPURAM. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAIBY PAUL THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss CRMC. NO.2772/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES A:- COPY OF THE HIRE PURCHASE AGREEMENT DTD. 23.7.2004 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE 2ND PETITIONER AND THE 3RD RESPONDENT. B:- COPY OF THE TELEGRAM DTD. 3.9.05 SENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE 2ND PETITIONER. C:- COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE DTD. 27.9.2005 SENT BY THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. D:- COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DTD. 29.11.2005. E:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 17.1.2006 FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT F:- COPY OF THE DIARY EXTRACT DT.D 20.5.2006 IN CC. 602/2006. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES NIL:- TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss B.P. RAY, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 2772 of 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of August, 2011. O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in C.C. No. 602 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Malappuram for an offence punishable under Section 380 r/w Section 34 IPC. The petitioners' case is that respondent No.3 purchased a vehicle by taking loan from the petitioners. Since respondent No.3 did not pay the instalments, the vehicle was repossessed for which the complaint was filed before the police. The agreement between the parties was that the petitioners are the real owners of the vehicle in question. The police after due investigation filed the final report accusing of the petitioners all the charges. After receipt of the final report, respondent No.3 filed a protest complaint on which cognizance has been taken. It is the well settled principle of law that in hire purchase agreement the financier is always the real owner of the vehicle though the registered owner of the vehicle is the purchaser of the vehicle. It is for the petitioners to file an application for Crl.M.C. No. 2772/2006 -:2:- discharge highlighting these points. If such an application is filed, the learned Magistrate shall pass reasoned orders thereon. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that they are business people and their presence may not be insisted upon before the trial court. If the petitioners file an application under Section 205 Cr.P.C on or before 17.08.2011, they shall be permitted to represent through their counsel on such terms and conditions the Magistrate deems fit. This Crl.M.C is disposed of as above. sd/- B.P. RAY, JUDGE. rv