Dismissed

Surajkumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Oct 2012Crl.MC/72/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismissed a petition invoking Section 482 CrPC challenging an interim order. The Magistrate had granted interim custody of a seized vehicle to a rival purchaser who claimed ownership over the registered owner, insisting on security to protect interests.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; Magistrate's order granting interim custody to the second respondent with bond and sureties is upheld.

Surajkumar Vs State of Kerala — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/9TH ASWINA 1934

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 72 of 2012 ()

¶6

CMP.13714/2011 & 13727/2011 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, IRINJALAKUDA

¶7

(CRIME NO.1525/2011 OF KODAKARA POLICE STATION)

¶8

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT.:

¶9

SURAJKUMAR, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.RAJAGOPALAN, KOZHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.VALAPPAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,SREEBALAN,AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN, PANIKKASERI HOUSE,P.O.NATTIKA, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT

¶11

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/STATE AND ACCUSED 2 & 3:

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-31.

¶13

2. JUSTIN, S/O.OUSEPH, VETTATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, ALATHUR, NELLAI, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶14

3. BIJU, S/O.THOMAS, PULLON HOUSE, POOCHUNNIPADAM, CHOVOOR,THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶15

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. R. REMA R2 BY ADVS. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) R3 BY ADVS. SRI.P.V.VIJAYAKUMAR SMT.P.LAKSHMY

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Kss

CRMC.NO.72/2012

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶21

ANNEXURE A. TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, IRINJALAKUDA.

¶22

ANNEXURE B. TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.1525/2011 OF THE KODAKARA POLICE STATION.

¶23

ANNEXURE C. TRUE COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR SUBMITTED BY THE S.I. OF POLICE KODAKARA.

¶24

ANNEXURE D. TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SEC.451 CR.PC.

¶25

ANNEXURE E. TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT CMP NO.13727/2011 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, IRINJALAKUDA.

¶26

ANNEXURE F. TRUE COPY OF THE SALE AGREEMENT PRODUCED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶27

ANNEXURE G. CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29/12/2011 IN CMP NO.13714/2011 IN CRIME NO.1525/2011 OF KODAKARA POLICE STATION OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, IRINJALAKUDA.

¶28

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:

N I L

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

Kss

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.

¶34

----------------------------------------------Crl.M.C No.72 OF 2012

¶35

------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 1^st day of October, 2012

¶36

ORDER

¶37

Petitioner claiming to be the registered owner of a motor vehicle applied for interim custody of that vehicle after it was seized and produced in the crime registered on his complaint by the police. A rival claim was set up by another person contending that he was the purchaser of the vehicle on payment of valuable consideration. On the materials placed by both sides, the learned Magistrate found that the claim of the person who claimed to be the purchaser, the second respondent in the above petition, has to be accepted for release of the vehicle on interim custody. Directing to execute a bond for Rs.5,00,000/- with two solvent sureties the Magistrate passed Annexure G order for release of the vehicle on interim custody to the second respondent. That order is challenged in this petition invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for short, 'the Code'.

¶38

Crl.M.C No.72/2012

¶39

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner being the registered owner of the vehicle, his claim for interim custody should have been accepted by the Magistrate. In fact, the claim raised by the second respondent was not on the basis of any transfer by him, but, from a third party, is the further submission of the counsel. However, after looking into the materials produced with the petition and also Annexure G order challenged, with reference to the scope and ambit of Section 451 of the Code, which calls for an enquiry only with respect to the fitness of the orders to be passed on the interim custody of an article produced, I find, orders passed by the Magistrate cannot be said to be suffering from any infirmity whatsoever. Further more, adequate security has also been insisted upon for releasing the vehicle on interim custody to the second respondent, securing the interest of any other person over that vehicle. No interference with that order is called for, and the petition is dismissed.

¶41

vdv

¶42

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE

Surajkumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surajkumar v. State of Kerala

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

Cyriac Thomas @ Kuriachan Vs Baby Mathew

Thankamma Joseph Vs State of Kerala

P.K. Arumughan Vs U. Rajeevan

Thomas G. Vs State of Kerala and Others

Vidya Vs Geethabhai

M.K.Sukumar @ Suku Menon Vs Yasir