Dismissed

Mohammad Mudassir v. State by

Karnataka HC3 Sept 2021CRL.RP/624/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition seeking the release of a seized Honda Brio car to the registered owner. Despite the petitioner's claim of ownership, the court noted the vehicle was likely purchased with crime proceeds involving the accused and reserved the ownership issue for trial.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petition was dismissed, maintaining the seizure of the vehicle.

Mohammad Mudassir Vs State by — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.624 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

MOHAMMAD MUDASSIR S/O. MOHAMMAD ILYAS, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, RESIDING AT #304, SHANTHI NAGAR, 4^TH CROSS, 1^ST MAIN, MYSURU – 570 023.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI RANGANATH REDDY R., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND

¶12

STATE BY UDUPI TOWN POLICE STATION, UDUPI DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶13

...RESPONDENT (BY SRI VIJAY KUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL.S.P.P.)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17-12-2019 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU, IN SPL.C.C.No.366 OF 2019 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 507, 504, 384, 387, 506, 120(b) AND 201 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF THE

¶15

¶16

INDIAN PENAL CODE AND SECTION 3 OF THE KCOC ACT, DISMISSING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTIONS 451 AND 457 OF THE CR.P.C., BY ALLOWING THIS REVISION PETITION TO ORDER THE RELEASE THE HONDA BRIO CAR BEARING REGISTRATION No.KA-04-MQ-3492 TO THE CUSTODY OF THE PETITIONER.

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This revision petition is filed by the petitioner-RC Owner under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) for setting aside the order passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru in Spl.C.C.No.366/2019 and the order passed by the Sessions Judge on the application filed by the petitioner under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. for having dismissing the application.

¶20

Heard the arguments of Sri Ranganath Reddy R., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vijay Kumar Majage, learned Additional SPP for the respondent – State.

¶21

¶22

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the RC owner of the Honda Brio Car bearing registration No.KA-04-MQ-3492. He has filed an application for seeking interim custody of the vehicle under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C., before the Sessions Judge which was seized in Crime No.25/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506, 507, 384, 385, 387, 120(B) and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and also Section 3 of the KCOC Act.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner has

¶24

contended that the petitioner is the RC owner and he is nothing to do with the offences committed by accused No.2. In fact, accused No.2 purchased the motorbike through this petitioner for Rs.5,50,000/- by paying money. Subsequently, the bike was taken by the friend of this petitioner for jolly ride but, it was met with an accident and it was sold for an amount of Rs.40,000/-. By accumulating an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, he tried to pay the said amount to accused No.2. But accused No.2

¶25

¶26

demanded to give car in spite of money. Therefore, he has purchased the car by borrowing loan of Rs.2,00,000/-. The purchased car was given to accused No.2 but, in fact the B-Register is taken in the name of the petitioner. The Police have seized the car which was in the custody of this petitioner. Hence, prayed for allowing the petition.

¶27

On the other hand, learned Additional SPP objected the petition and contended that accused No.2 and others have involved in so many cases. Out of the crime proceeds, accused No.2 gave money to the petitioner and purchased the motor bike. The investigation is completed and charge-sheet is filed. The car is purchased though in the name of the petitioner, but it is out of the crime proceeds of the accused. The same was revealed in the confession statement of accused No.4 who is the blood brother of accused No.2. If the vehicle is released to the petitioner, he may change the identity of the vehicle which may hamper the trial. The offence is heinous one. The accused is involved in the KCOC Act. Learned Additional

¶28

¶29

SPP also submits that the vehicle was with CW.43 and at no point of time, the vehicle was with CW.55. The vehicle was purchased out of the crime amount. Therefore, prayed for dismissing the petition.

¶30

Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of

¶31

the records, admittedly, the vehicle was seized by the Police at the instance of accused No.2 and as per the confession statement of accused No.4, accused No.2 has purchased a bike for Rs.7,00,000/- through this petitioner and Rs.3,00,000/- has been paid to the petitioner and remaining Rs.4,00,000/- has been given to Shashi Poojari. Later it is revealed the said bike is purchased out of the crime proceeds. Later the bike was scrapped by selling the same for Rs.40,000/- and then the petitioner tried to pay Rs.2,00,000/- to accused No.2 but in view of refusal, the petitioner purchased a car in his name and gave to accused No.2. The confession statement of accused No.4 clearly goes to show that accused No.2 and other accused are involved in the commission of offence and there are

¶32

¶33

many cases registered against them in various Police Stations limits and out of the said amount, the bike has been purchased. Even if the car is purchased out of the crime proceeds, it amounts to commission of offence under Section 384 of IPC and other offences. Accordingly, under the KCOC Act, the case also committed and the chargesheet has already filed by the Police.

¶34

Merely, the name of the petitioner is mentioned in the RC Book, but that itself is not a ground to release the vehicle in favour of the petitioner. On the other hand, the vehicle does not belong to the accused persons and it might be purchased in the name of the petitioner. Whether the petitioner is a real owner as he paid the money is the matter of trial and it has to be contested and claimed during the trial while passing of the final order. Therefore, at this stage, if the vehicle is released to the petitioner, there is every possibility of selling the vehicle or changing the identity of the vehicle is not ruled out. Therefore, I am of the view that there is no error in

¶35

¶36

passing the order passed by the trial court in rejecting the application which calls for interference by this Court in revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, criminal revision petition is dismissed .

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

GBB

Mohammad Mudassir v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Mudassir v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Abdul Sattar Vs M/S H M Estates and Properties

Gopal Krishna Vs State of Karnataka

Usman N B Vs Mr. I. Ramlan

Sri M v Ramakrishnaiah Vs State by a C B Police

C.S.Balakrishna Vs the State of Karnataka

Gadde Sunil Kumar Choudhary Vs the State of Karnataka