Allowed

Nawaz Shariff v. State by Mico Layout

Karnataka HC15 Sept 2016CRL.P/4256/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking release of seized motor vehicles belonging to petitioners, who claimed ownership despite incomplete documentation. The High Court allowed the petition, directing release upon furnishing adequate security.

What did the court decide?

Directed that the seized vehicles be released to the petitioners after they furnish adequate security.

Nawaz Shariff Vs State by Mico Layout — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4256 OF 2016

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Nawaz Shariff, Son of Fayaz Shariff, Aged about 32 years, Residing at Fort Masjid Area, Sarjapura, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore – 560 212.

¶9

Soukhatha Pasha, Son of Mohammed Altaf, Aged about 38 years, Residing at 17/3, MG Farden, Neelasandra, Bangalore – 560 047.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(By Shri C.R.Raghavendra Reddy, Advocate)

¶12

AND:

¶13

State by Mico Layout Police Station, Bangalore.

¶14

¶15

Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru – 560 001.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(By Shri Chetan Desai, Government Pleader for Respondent/State)

¶18

¶19

This Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to set aside the order dated 15.4.2016 passed by the LXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-68) in Crl.R.P.No.221/2016 and also set aside the order dated 9.3.2016 passed by the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in Crime No.1079/2015 of Mico Layout Police, Bangalore and allow the above petition and release the seized vehicle bearing No.KA51ED0239 (Suzuki White Colour Motor Cycle) subjected to PF No.268/2015 which belongs to the petitioner no.1 and vehicle bearing No.KA51H1673 (Honda Motor Active DLX) subjected to PF No.263(A)/2015 belongs to Soukath Pasha i.e., the petitioner no.2 to the interim custody of the petitioners in the above case.

¶20

This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission this day, the court made the following:

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the

¶23

learned Government Pleader.

¶24

¶25

It is the case of one Farhana Khanum – the

¶26

complainant, that on 28.11.2015, she was sitting outside her house when two unknown persons had approached her for donation to construct a Masjid. The complainant had replied that her husband was not at home and had asked them to come

¶27

in the morning. At which, they had stated that they had come from a very far place and cannot come on the next day. When the complainant walked inside, one of the persons had followed her and had tried to strangulate her with a white rope. She had immediately raised an alarm and a vegetable vendor passing by had intervened and on seeing the vegetable vendor, the assailant and another had run away leaving behind their motor cycles. On a complaint, the police had seized their vehicles and the said vehicles are said to be in the custody of the police. The petitioners who are said to be the owners of the vehicles had approached the court below seeking release of the vehicles. Incidentally, the accused persons who were said to be unknown, had subsequently been arrested on investigation and had even

¶28

¶29

been enlarged on bail. The petitioners’ applications for release of the vehicles have been refused by the court below on the ground that the charge-sheet is yet to be filed, and further, in so far as petitioner No.2 is concerned, on the ground that the vehicle did not stand in his name.

¶30

It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the first petitioner is the owner of one of the vehicles seized. But however, the court below has refused to release the vehicle. Insofar as the second petitioner is concerned, it is stated that there was indeed a sale of the vehicle and the formality of transfer of the name in the RC book in favour of the second petitioner is outstanding. Only recently documents have been executed by the erstwhile owner, all of which have been produced before the court. Yet, the court has disbelieved the version of the second petitioner and has held that in the eye of law, it is one Kashinath who continues to be the owner of the vehicle and that the application of the said petitioner for release of the vehicle could not be considered,

¶31

¶32

since the vehicle is involved in a crime. Moreover, Kashinath, the erstwhile owner is reluctant to appear before the court and support the case of the petitioner. It is in this background that the petitioners are before this court.

¶33

From the documents that are produced along with this petition, it is evident that there is a sale of the vehicle in favour of the second petitioner, but the formal documentation is incomplete. The court takes judicial notice of the fact that normally this is the mode adopted by the parties in transfer of vehicles where the formality of such transfer takes place casually and at the whim and fancy of the parties, the documentation is completed.

¶34

Therefore, on adequate security being furnished by the petitioners, the vehicles could be released in favour of the petitioners. For otherwise, the vehicles which are kept exposed to the elements, would possibly deteriorate and would lose its value. Therefore, the petition is allowed and the vehicles shall

¶35

¶36

be released in favour of the petitioners after taking adequate measures as directed by the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat AIR 2003 SC 638 and by this court in K.W. Ganapathy vs. State of Karnataka ILR 2002 KAR 3751.

¶37

Sd/- JUDGE

¶38

Nawaz Shariff v. State by Mico Layout

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nawaz Shariff v. State by Mico Layout

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M. Muniraju Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Usha R Patwari Vs the Karnataka Lokayuktha

Sumit Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Venkatesh Babu Vs State of Karnataka

Mangilal Jain M Vs State of Karnataka

Gopal S Pandith Vs the State of Karnataka