High Court dismissed criminal petitions filed by the registered owner of a seized bus. The judge held that the magistrate correctly relied on a prior civil court decree adjudicating possession, finding no impropriety in denying the petitioner interim custody.
Petitions filed for interim custody of the seized vehicle dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/18TH ASWINA 1934
Crl.MC.No. 465 of 2012 ()
IN CMP.NO.7981/2011 of C.J.M.,THODUPUZHA
PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:
JOMON CYRIAC, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.SKARIAH, KOTTAKKALLIL HOUSE, ELAMDESAM P.O. THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI.
BY ADVS.SRI.L.RAJESH NARAYAN IYER SRI.I.DINESH MENON
COMPLAINANT(S):
1. ANILKUMAR,
2. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
THODUPUZHA, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA-682 031.
3. M/S.KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
4. M/S SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO.LTD., REGD OFFICE, 123 A.N.STREET, CHENNAI-1.
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
R1 BY ADV.SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM R2 BY ADV.SRI.R.RANJITH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-10-2012, ALONG WITH CRMC. 848/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
DG
Crl.MC.No. 465 of 2012 ()
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE-A: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.01.2012 IN C.M.P.NO.7981/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THODUPUZHA.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
DG
S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
---------------------------------Crl.M.C. Nos. 465 & 848 OF 2012
----------------------------------------Dated this the 10th day of October, 2012.
O R D E R
Rival claimants setting forth their possessory
right over a stage carriage bus, which was seized by the police during the investigation of the crime, approached the magistrate seeking orders for interim custody of such vehicle. Admittedly, over the vehicle, hypothication made financing a loan for its purchase prevailed. That financier also moved a claim for interim custody. Learned magistrate after considering the rival claims raised by the three parties dismissed the applications moved by the financier and also one of the applicants who claimed to be the registered owner of the vehicle. Claim for interim custody canvassed by the remaining claimant, who claimed to be the purchaser of the vehicle for valuable consideration, was allowed by the magistrate imposing some conditions which inter alia directed him to execute bond for a sum of Rs.6 lakhs with two
Crl.M.C. 465/12 & Crl.M.C.848/12 2
solvent sureties for the like sum by each of them. Worsted in the proceedings before the court below, petitioner, registered owner of the vehicle, has filed the above two petitions. From the submissions made by the counsel on both sides and looking into the common order passed by the magistrate, it is seen, as between the parties to the present proceedings, previously, there was a litigation before the competent civil forum over the possession of the vehicle. Materials produced before the magistrate had disclosed that the applicant who claimed to be the purchaser of the vehicle had obtained a decree from the civil court restraining the financier and also the present petitioner, the rival claimant, from taking forceful possession of the motor vehicle from his custody. Where a civil court has already adjudicated the issue regarding the claim of possession canvassed by the rival claimants, the magistrate is bound to respect such decree. Where an exceptional case is made out inspite of a decree binding on the parties, it may be open to the magistrate to pass orders regarding the interim custody of the property involved in criminal proceedings. No such case has
Crl.M.C. 465/12 & Crl.M.C.848/12 3
been made out in the case on the facts and circumstances presented in the case, I find there is no impropriety leave alone any illegality in the orders passed by the magistrate on the rival claims raised by the parties for interim custody of the vehicle. Needless to point out, what has been ordered by the magistrate is only an order regarding interim custody of the vehicle involved in the crime, which, of course, if need be, can be modified or vacated if cause is shown at a later stage.
Petitions are dismissed.
S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE
mjl
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an order granting interim custody of a seized vehicle to a claimant after a civil court decree should be challenged in criminal proceedings.
Whether the magistrate was bound to respect the civil court decree regarding possession of the vehicle.
Jomon Cyriac
Anilkumar
State of Kerala
Kerala Transport Development Finance Corporation Ltd.
Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.
S.S. Satheesachandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
