Archana vs State of Kerala

K. Ramakrishnan, J.—This is an application filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Punalur in Crl. M.P. No. 3458/2014 under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

It is alleged in the petition that petitioner is the registered owner of Activa scooter with No. KL-25-B-1958. The relationship between the petitioner and her husband were strained and the petition for divorce is pending before the family Court. In the meantime, her husband tried to kill her and escaped from the scene. On the basis of the statement given by her, a crime was registered in respect of the incident as crime No. 554/2014 of Pathanapuram police station against the husband of the petitioner and as part of the investigation, the investigating officer has seized the vehicle and produced the same before the court. The petitioner filed Crl. M.P. No. 3458/2014 for interim custody of the vehicle and that was rejected by the learned Magistrate by Annexure-C order, which is being challenged by the petitioner by filing this petition.

Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned public Prosecutor.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no dispute regarding the fact that she is the registered owner of the vehicle and she is prepared to produce the vehicle as and when required and she is prepared to abide by any condition imposed also for releasing the vehicle. Further, if the vehicle is kept in the police station for long time it will become useless. So the reasons stated by the court below for dismissal of the application is unsustainable in law.

On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that after committing the offence the accused escaped by using his vehicle and it is required for purpose of the trial.

It is seen from the documents produced that the petitioner is the registered owner of the scooter with No. KL-25-B-1958 and it is also an admitted fact that the crime itself was registered on the basis of statement given by the petitioner as de facto complainant against her husband as their relationship strained and divorce petition is also pending before the Family Court and it was during that time as per prosecution, allegations that her husband came to the house and tried to kill her and thereafter, escaped from there using the scooter. The lower court has not mentioned anything in the order as to why the vehicle has to be kept under the custody of the police.

Further in the decision reported in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and C.M. Mudaliar Vs. State of Gujarat, , the Hon''ble Supreme court has held that in case motor vehicle involved in the crimes, no purpose will be served by keeping the vehicle for indefinite period in the custody of Court or Police as it will only cause damage to the vehicle and became useless when it has to be returned after the case is over and issued certain guidelines as to how the motor vehicles seized in connection with the crime have to be dealt with while interim custody is ordered. Further the only allegation was that the accused, after committing the crime, used this vehicle for escaping from the place of offence in which the case unloading of the vehicle is not required at present. Even if, the court feels that the vehicle is required for the purpose of trial, then a condition can be imposed for producing the vehicle as and when required and petitioner should not transfer or cause any modification in the vehicle without getting the permission of the court and that will serve the purpose. Further, as mentioned in the above decision, the photographs of the vehicle with inventory regarding the present stage of the vehicle can be also taken and that could be produced in court and later if there is no dispute regarding the identity of the vehicle, this can be used as evidence at the time of trial as well. So, under the circumstances, the court below was not justified in dismissing the application without considering the dictum laid on in the above decision. So Annexure-C passed by the court below has to be set aside the petition has to be allowed.

So the petition is allowed and the Judicial First Class Magistrate No-II, Punalur is directed to release the vehicle to the petitioner on the following conditions:-

The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No-II, Punalur.

The petitioner shall produce the original registration certificate and other relevant documents before the court below along with attested copy of the same for satisfying the Magistrate that she is a registered owner of the vehicle.

The learned Magistrate is directed to direct the investigating officer to take photographs of the vehicle showing its identity and also prepare an inventory of the condition of the vehicle and produce the photographs and the inventory so prepared within a time fixed by that court before that Court.

The petitioner shall not transfer or cause any change in the vehicle without getting prior permission from the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Punalur and after committal, from the court to which the case will be committed for trial till the disposal of the case.

The petitioner shall produce the vehicle as and when required by the court.

The petitioner shall file an affidavit in the form of undertaking that she will abide by the conditions imposed by this court for getting custody of the vehicle.

With the above observations and directions, the petition is disposed of. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court immediately.