Renjith vs The State of Kerala

K. Ramakrishnan, J.—This is an application filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed in Crl.M.P. No. 2261/13 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Perumbavoor, confirmed in Crl.R.P. No. 107/2013 of Sessions Court, Ernakulam under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (herein after called the Code).

It is alleged in the petition that, petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle KL-46-B-4500 Swift car which was seized by the Thadiyittaparambu police station in connection with the crime No. 217/2012 of that police station, which was registered on the basis of the complaint given by the fourth respondent, alleging offence under section 394 of Indian Penal Code. The petitioner filed Crl.M.P. No. 1033/2013 for interim custody of the vehicle, and financier filed Crl.M.P. No. 1841/2013, and the de facto complainant filed Crl.M.P. No. 2071/2013, for the same purpose and all these petitions were disposed of, by the learned Magistrate by a common order dated 06.09.2013, and allowed the application filed by the financier and interim custody was granted to them and dismissed the applications filed by the de facto complainant, and also the petitioner. The financier did not comply with the condition. So the petitioner filed Crl.M.P. No. 2261/2013, for recalling that order and grant interim custody of the vehicle and the learned Magistrate by Annexure-A order, dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Crl.R.P. No. 107/2013, and the learned Sessions Judge also dismissed the revision in view of the bar under section 397(2) r/w section 362 of Code of Criminal Procedure as the Criminal Court has no power to recall or review the order and the impugned order is an interlocutory order. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner.

While the petition was pending before this Court, the matter has been settled between the parties, and the financier as well as the de facto complainant appeared through counsel and submitted that they have no objection in giving interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner and financier also submitted that entire dues of the vehicle has been paid to them, and they have no claim over the vehicle any longer. Since, the earlier order passed by the learned Magistrate was not challenged by the petitioner, the petitioner filed Crl.M.A. No. 7176/2014 for amendment of the prayer challenging that order as well and also produced the earlier impugned common order passed by the learned Magistrate in this regard giving interim custody of the vehicle to the financier and that was allowed.

Heard both sides and perused the orders.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the fact that, neither the financier nor the de facto complainant have any objection regarding the release of the vehicle to the petitioner, he prayed for allowing the application.

The counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 submitted that they have no objection releasing the vehicle to the petitioner as entire financial liability created on the vehicle has been discharged by the petitioner.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application.

It is an admitted fact that, the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle involved in this case namely, KL-46-B-4500 Swift car. It is also an admitted fact that on the basis of the statement given by the fourth respondent, a crime was registered as crime no. 217/2012 of Thadiyittaparambu police station against the petitioner alleging offence under section 394 of Indian Penal Code. It is also an admitted fact that as part of the investigation, the police seized the vehicle from the possession of the petitioner and produced the same before the Court and the financier, petitioner and the de facto complainant preferred applications for interim custody of the vehicle, and the learned Magistrate by Annexure-C common order, disposed of those applications, allowing the application filed by the financier, and dismissing the applications filed by the petitioner and the de facto complainant and the interim custody of the vehicle was ordered to be given to the financier on complying with certain conditions. But, the financier did not comply with those conditions and the vehicle is still in the custody of the police. So, the petitioner moved that court by filing Crl.M.P. No. 2261/2013 and pointed out that financier has not complied with the condition and wanted to recall the earlier order and grant interim custody of the vehicle to him and that was rightly dismissed by the court below as court has no power to recall the earlier order. The petitioner filed revision against that order and that also rightly dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge as per Annexure-B order, but, now before this court, the prayer has been amended challenging the earlier order of granting interim custody as no revision will be possible against that order. The application is perfectly maintainable under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that can be considered by this Court.

It is an admitted fact that the vehicle was seized from the possession of the petitioner and he is the registered owner of the vehicle. Now, the financier or the de facto complainant has any claim over the vehicle. The vehicle is still in the custody of the police and if it is kept in the custody of the police, for the longer period, it will only get ruined. Since the financier as well as the de facto complainant has no interest over the vehicle now, this court feels that it is appropriate and just in the interest of both parties that the interim custody can be given to the present petitioner, who is the registered owner of the vehicle. So the common order passed by the court below as per Annexure-C, in respect of petitioner and financier are set aside and the application filed by the petitioner, namely, Crl.M.P. No. 1033/2013 is allowed and the other applications filed by the de facto complainant and the petitioner, namely, Crl.M.P. Nos. 2071/2013 and 1841/2013 are dismissed and interim custody of the vehicle is granted to the petitioner on the following conditions:-

The learned Magistrate is directed to release the vehicle No. KL-46-B-4500 Swift car to the petitioner on executing bond for Rs. 50,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Perumbavoor.

The learned Magistrate is directed to ask the investigating officer to take photographs of the vehicle along with an inventory and negative or CD of the photographs produce the same before that court within a time frame.

The petitioner shall not alienate, disposes or encumber the vehicle or make any change in the vehicle without the permission of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Perumbavoor till the disposal of the case.

The petitioner shall produce the original documents, namely, registration certificate, insurance certificate etc before the court below for satisfaction along with the attested copies of the same, so that, the learned Magistrate shall verify the same and return the original to the petitioner, retaining the arrested copies in the file.

The petitioner shall produce the vehicle as and when required for the purpose of trial of the case as directed by that Court.

The petitioner shall file affidavit in the form of an undertaking that he will comply with the above conditions strictly.

As regards the prayer for quashing the complaint is concerned, this court feels that it is not fit for quashing the complaint at this stage as the investigation is still in progress regarding the genuineness of the allegations made and also the nature of offence alleged. So the petitioner is not entitled to get the relief of quashing the proceedings at this stage.

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