IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2713 of 2009() ------------------------- CMP.2500/2009 of JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, PEERUMEDU. CRIME NO.314/2009 OF KUMALI POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT. .................... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- JOJIT JOSEPH, S/O.E.C.JOSEPH, ILAVUMOOTTIL VEETTIL, THEKKADY KARA, KUMALY VILLAGE, PEERUMEDU, TALUK, IDUKKI DIST. BY ADV. MR.N.K.SHYJU RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SHIHABUDEEN. M.I., S/O. AHAMMED MANATHEVADAKKE PUTHENPURAYIL, VAZHAKKALA, KAKKANAD, THRIKKAKARA, ERNAKULAM DIST. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.SALIM R2 BY ADV. MR.S.RAJEEV . THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/11/2009, ALONG WITH CRMC NO. 2724 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No. 2713 & 2724 OF 2009 =========================== Dated this the 30th day of November,2009 ORDER Stage Carriage bus KL-7/AC-3768 involved in Crime 314/2009 of Kumali Police Station was seized by the police on the allegation that an offence under section 279 of Indian Penal Code is made out. The vehicle was produced before the Magistrate and as directed, kept in the police station. Petitioner filed CMP No.2500/2009 and second respondent filed CMP 2499/2009 for interim custody of the vehicle under section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioner claimed right based on Annexure A1 agreement for sale contending that by the said agreement, second respondent the registered owner agreed to sell the vehicle for a total consideration of Rs.10 lakhs and Rs. 3 lakhs was paid as advance and therefore he is entitled to get interim custody of the vehicle. Second respondent being the registered owner claimed interim custody. By Annexure A5 order Crl.M.C.2724/2009 application filed by the second respondent was allowed and by Annexure A4 order in Crl.M.C.2713/2009, the petition filed by the petitioner Crl.M.C.2713 & 2724/2009 2 was dismissed. Crl.M.C.2713/2009 was filed to quash Annexure A4 order by which his application for interim custody was dismissed. Crl.M.C.2724/2009 is filed to quash Annexure A5 order by which interim custody was granted to the second respondent. 2. Petitioner would contend that eventhough second respondent is the registered owner when he executed Annexure A1 agreement, learned Magistrate should not have granted interim custody of the vehicle to the second respondent in view of the sale to the petitioner and therefore the order is to be quashed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent pointed out that Annexure A1 agreement is a forged agreement and it was not executed by the second respondent and on coming to know about the forgery, a complaint was filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Peerumedu and it was sent for investigation under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Crime 314/2009 of Kumali Police Station is registered for the offence under section 120B, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code and in such circumstances, petitioner is not entitled to get interim custody of the vehicle. It is argued that as second respondent is the registered owner of the vehicle, learned Magistrate rightly granted interim custody of the vehicle to him and there is no reason to interfere with the order. 4. Annexure A5 order passed by the learned Magistrate establish that it was the second respondent who has Crl.M.C.2713 & 2724/2009 3 produced the entire vehicular documents including the R.C book and the insurance certificate before the learned Magistrate. Second respondent is admittedly the registered owner of the vehicle. Though petitioner is claiming that second respondent executed an agreement for sale after receiving Rs.10 lakhs and the vehicle was transferred to him, when second respondent disputes the agreement and contend that the agreement was not executed by him and it is a forged document, petitioner is not entitled to get interim custody of the vehicle on the strength of the document. I find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Magistrate under Annexure A5, granting interim custody to the second respondent who is the registered owner. If petitioner is having any right by virtue of the alleged agreement executed by the second respondent, he is at liberty to approach the civil court seeking a decree based on the agreement. In any event, when Annexure A5 order is liable to be modified or valid, at the time of final disposal of the case as provided under section 452 of Code of Criminal Procedure and it is not the final decision on the point, I find no reason whatsoever to interfere with that order. Petitions are dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006