AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H.N. Nagamohan Das
On a complaint given by the petitioner, the jurisdictional police registered a case in Crime No. 63/2011 for the offences punishable u/s 406 and 420 of IPC. During the course of investigation, the police seized the vehicle Toyota Innova Car bearing Registration No. KA-53-M-772. Now the investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed. In the meanwhile, the petitioner as well as 2nd respondent filed applications before the Jurisdictional Magistrate claiming custody of the vehicle in question. The Magistrate vide order dated 09.06.2011 passed the impugned order and the operative portion reads as under:
Interim custody of the Toyota Innova Vehicle bearing Registration No. KA-53-M-772 is handed over to the petitioner No. 1 K. Dhananjay on execution of Indemnity bond for Rs. 10,00,000/- and surety for the like sum with following conditions
The petitioner shall not sell or change the colour of the vehicle without prior permission from the Court.
The petitioner shall produce the vehicle as and when directed by this Court and Investigating Officer.
Investigating Officer is directed to prepare the panchanama and take photographs of the vehicle before releasing it.
After compliance to the above conditions, the vehicle shall be released to the interim custody of the petitioner No. 1.
The application filed by the petitioner No. 2, Narendra U/s. 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected."
Aggrieved by the said order of the jurisdictional Magistrate, the petitioner filed Revision Petition in Crl.R.P. 205/2011 on the file of Fast Track Court at Bangalore. After hearing the parties, the Revision Court vide order dated 21.09.2011 dismissed the Revision Petition and confirmed the order passed by the jurisdictional Magistrate. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.
It is seen from the record that, in all the documents relating to the vehicle in question, name of 2nd respondent finds a place. It is well settled law that a person who is entitled to use the vehicle is alone entitled for custody of the vehicle. Even if the vehicle is released in favour of the petitioner in whose name there are no documents, he cannot put the vehicle into use. In the circumstances, the impugned orders passed by the Courts below are in accordance with law.
Both the Courts below while passing impugned orders had taken care to protect the interest of the petitioner who claims to be the owner of the vehicle in question. The jurisdictional Magistrate directed the 2nd respondent to execute an indemnity bond for a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- and also furnish solvent surety for the like sum. These conditions imposed by the jurisdictional Magistrate, protect the interest of the petitioner. In the circumstances, I find no illegality or error in the impugned orders passed by the Courts below. Accordingly, the petition is hereby dismissed. Having regard to the nature of controversy between the parties, it is necessary that a direction be issued to the Jurisdictional Magistrate to expedite the matter and dispose of the entire case within a time frame of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.