Disposed

T.T.Joseph v. Antony and Anr.

Kerala HC24 Jan 2008Crl.MC/214/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a criminal miscellaneous petition challenging an interim custody order. The Court rejected interference for the present but directed the petitioner to approach the Magistrate again if the underlying FIR results in a charge-sheet.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed without current interference; petitioner directed to move for custody again if investigation concludes in a charge-sheet.

T.T.Joseph Vs Antony and Anr. — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 24TH JANUARY 2008 / 4TH MAGHA 1929

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 214 of 2008()

¶6

-----------------------AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14/09/2007 IN CMP. 2498 /2007 IN CMP.2235/2007 of JDUL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, RAMANKARI

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

¶9

T.T.JOSEPH, S/O. THOMAS, THYCHERRY VEEDU, THOTTUVATHALA MURI, NEDUMUDY VILLAGE.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER & STATE

¶12

¶13

ANTONY KURIAN, S/O. V.J.KURIAN, VAZHAPPARAMBIL VEEDU, NEDUMUDI VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA.

¶14

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.S. SIVAKUMAR

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/01/2008 ALONG WITH CRMC 220/08, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶18

*** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.M.C. Nos.214 & 220 of 2008 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 24-01-2008**

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The common petitioner who claims to be the registered owner of an ambassador car KL4-T 217 challenges the common order dated 14-09-2007 passed by the J.F.C.M. Ramankary in C.M.P. Nos. 2235 of 2007 and 2498 of 2007 by which the interim custody of the vehicle was given to the first respondent herein and interim custody sought for by the petitioner was rejected. Those petitions were filed under Sec. 451 Cr.P.C. in against Crime No. 65 of 2007 of Nedumudi Police Station in which the petitioner was the de facto complainant and which was at the stage of investigation. There is another crime registered at the instance of the first respondent herein as Crime No. 53 of 2007 before the very same police which had resulted in a refer report filed by the police. Crime No. 65 of 2007 in which the petitioner was the de facto complainant was still at the stage of investigation.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that interim custody was given to the first respondent notwithstanding the fact that Crime No. 53 of 2007 registered at his instance resulted

¶22

-:2:-

¶23

in a refer report. The petitioner would further submit that the first respondent herein had forged documents to make it appear that the petitioner had sold the vehicle to him and it was on the basis of those documents that he was claiming possession of the vehicle. In as much as the order passed by the learned Magistrate is only for interim custody and that too on sufficient safeguards, I am not inclined to interfere with the said order for the present. However, if Crime No. 65 of 2007 of the Nedumudi police registered at the instance of the petitioner ends in a charge-sheet the petitioner shall be entitled to move the Magistrate again with notice to the first respondent for interim custody and as and when such petition is filed, the same shall be considered and disposed of after hearing both sides.

¶24

This Crl. MCs are disposed of as above.

¶25

V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE)

¶26

ani.

T.T.Joseph v. Antony and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.T.Joseph v. Antony and Anr.

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

Shanoj Vs State of Kerala

Ramachandran and Others Vs State of Kerala and Another

Ramachandran Vs State of Kerala and Another

Ike Mani Vs State of Kerala

M.B.Kunjumuhammed Vs District Collector, Ernakulam and Others

O. Hareesh & Others Vs S.I. of Police & Another