IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2008 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 1945 of 2003() ------------------------- CC.172/2001 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, NEYYATTINKARA .................... PETITIONERS: ACCUSED ------------------- 1. SHIBU JOSEPH, S/O. JOSEPH, KOOLY, AGED 28, T.C.2/1102, KOWDIAR VILLAGE, TRIVANDRUM. 2. MOHANAN S/O. BHASKARAN, AGED 41, PYMENI PURAYIDOM, KOLLAM TOWN VILLAGE, QUILIN. 3. PREM S/O. PRABHAKARAN NAIR, AGED 40, KALLUVILAKAM VEEDU, T.C.15/1867, VAZHUTHACAUD, THYCAUD VILLAGE, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR SRI.K.K.VIJAYAN SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT ----------------------- THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BALARAMAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/05/2008 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.MC. NO.1945/2003 ORDER ON CRL.MP. NO.2217/2003 IN CRL.MC. NO.1945/2003 DISMISSED 22.05.2008 SD/- A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE tss A.K. Basheer, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 1945 of 2003 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2008. ORDER Petitioners who had been charge sheeted by Balaramapuram Police alleging commission of offence under Sections 451, 294(b) and 506(i) read with Section 34 IPC have preferred this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the above proceedings pending against them before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, No.III, Neyyattinkara. 2. The gist of the charge against the petitioners appears to be that they had trespassed into the residential premises of CW.1 at about 9 a.m. on January 5, 2001 and forcibly removed a Santro car bearing registration No. KL 01/S 8614 belonging to Cw.2, the son of Cw.1. 3. It is the admitted position that the car in question was hypothecated to HSBC Bank. It is also beyond controversy that petitioners had taken possession of the car as directed/authorised by the bank, since Cw.2 had committed default in repayment of the instalments payable by him under the hire purchase agreement. 4. It is primarily contended by the petitioners that no offence as alleged had been committed by them. It is the specific case of the petitioners that “their intention was to re-possess the vehicle as per the terms of authority”. I do not propose to deal with the above and other contentions raised by the petitioners at this stage. In my view, petitioners have to urge all their contentions before the trial court at the appropriate stage. If the petitioners make a plea for discharge, Cdr.MC.1945/2003. 2 the learned Magistrate shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. It is made clear that I have not considered the merit of any of the contentions raised by the petitioners. Crl.M.C is disposed of in the above terms. A.K. Basheer Judge. an.