Remanded

Hiloor Muhammed v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Jul 2016Crl.MC/6730/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged interim custody of his vehicle granted to the second respondent by the First Class Magistrate based on an alleged expired agreement. The High Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the lower court to address the expired lease period.

What did the court decide?

Case remanded to the First Class Magistrate to reconsider the interim custody order noting the expiration of the agreement period.

Hiloor Muhammed Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2016/14TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 6730 of 2015

¶6

CMP.10596/2015 & CMP.10614/2015 OF JUDICILA FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, NEDUMANGAD DATED 06-10-2015

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER IN CMP.NO.10614/2015:

¶8

HILOOR MUHAMMED,

¶9

S/O.SAINUDEEN, KUNNUMPURATHU VEEDU, ATTINPURAM, ANAD MURI, PANAVOOR VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & PETITIONER IN CMP.NO.10596/2015:

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

¶13

2. MUHAMMED SUDHER,

¶14

S/O.KASIM KUNJU, ALUVILAYIL VEEDU, THAZHAMEL ANCHAL, ANCHAL VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 691 306.

¶15

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE R2 BY ADV. SRI.SYAM J SAM

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

Crl.MC.No. 6730 of 2015

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES

¶21

ANNEXURE 1. COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 12.8.15.

¶22

ANNEXURE 11. COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 6.10.15 IN CMP 10596/15 AND CMP 10614/15 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT 11, NEDUMANGAD.

¶23

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V., J.

¶29

Crl.M.C. No.6730 of 2015

¶30

-----------------------------------------Dated this the 5^th day of July, 2016

¶31

O R D E R

¶32

~~~~~~~~

¶33

1.Petitioner is the registered owner of a Jaguar car bearing Reg.No.KL-21/K-4444. He claims to have purchased the vehicle on the strength of a loan availed from the ICICI Bank. It is the case of the petitioner that while he was facing financial difficulties, a friend of the petitioner offered a sum of Rs.18 lakhs and the vehicle was handed over to the said person as a guarantee for the transaction. When the vehicle was not returned, the petitioner had filed Annexure-A1 complaint before the court below . The police had taken the custody of the vehicle and the same was produced before the learned Magistrate. Rival claims

¶34

Crl.M.C.No.6730/2015 -2-

¶35

were raised before the learned Magistrate by the petitioner as well as the 2^nd respondent herein. As per Annexure-II order, the learned Magistrate, after evaluating the facts and circumstances, granted interim custody of the vehicle to the 2^nd respondent subject to various conditions. The said order is under challenge in this petition.

¶36

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Though the 2^nd respondent had entered appearance through counsel, there is no representation. It appears from Annexure-II order that the learned Magistrate was persuaded to grant interim custody of the vehicle to the 2^nd respondent disregarding the claim of the petitioner, who is the registered owner , in view of an agreement executed between the parties. The said agreement, which is not admitted by the

¶37

Crl.M.C.No.6730/2015 -3-

¶38

petitioner herein, reveals that a sum of Rs.18 lakhs was accepted by the petitioner herein, and the possession of the vehicle was handed over to the 2^nd respondent for a period of three months. The date of execution of alleged agreement is 13.7.2015. The learned Magistrate while allowing the application filed by the 2^nd respondent held that in view of the said agreement, the 2^nd respondent is the person who is best entitled to interim custody of the vehicle.

¶39

It is the specific contention of the learned counsel that the period mentioned in the agreement has expired and therefore, the reason for the grant of interim custody of the vehicle to the 2^nd respondent does not exist any more. It appears that the learned magistrate had granted custody to the 2^nd respondent by imposing certain conditions .

¶40

Crl.M.C.No.6730/2015 -4-

¶41

4.Having regard to the facts and circumstances and after going through Annexure-II order, I am of the view that it will be in the interest of justice to remit the matter back to the learned Magistrate with a direction to pass appropriate orders .

¶42

5.In the result this petition is disposed off and the court below is directed to reconsider the matter afresh, taking specific note of the fact that the period of the agreement relied on by the learned Magistrate has expired. The learned Magistrate shall strive to dispose of the matter, in accordance with law and on its merits , as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V. JUDGE

¶45

Ps/5/7/16

Hiloor Muhammed v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hiloor Muhammed 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Sasi Vs State of Kerala

Nithin Vs State of Kerala

Anas Vs State of Kerala

Haritha Vs the District Police Chief

Sunny Vs State of Kerala

Rocky Roy Vs State of Kerala