The High Court of Kerala dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petition challenging the order granting interim custody of a seized vehicle to the second respondent, whose title was supported by undisputed agreements and admission of genuineness by the third respondent.
The Magistrate is directed to release the vehicle to the second respondent without delay.
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 K.ABRAHAM MATHEW
TUESDAY ,THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940
Crl.MC.No. 4720 of 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP 435/2018 of J.M.F.C.,PERUMBAVOOR
AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP 474/2018 of J.M.F.C.,PERUMBAVOOR
CRIME NO. 3683/2017 OF Perumbavoor Police Station , Ernakulam
PETITIONER:
VALSAN
AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN,KOTTEKULATHIL HOUSE,KAKKANCHERRY KIZHAKKANCHERRY KARA,ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD.
BY ADVS. SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
RESPONDENTS:
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
Crl.MC.No. 4720 of 2018 2
PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION,PERUMBAVOOR - 683 542.
7 ADDL.7 AZAD, S/O.KHADER PILLA AZAD MANZIL, MILLUMPADY, PERUMBAVOOR
BY ADVS. PRAMOJ ABRAHAM SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA, SC, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE SRI.VINUCHAND SRI.GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA SC STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.S.SUNIL KUMAR (PALAKKAD) SRI.THOMAS J.ANAKKALLUNKAL
SRI C S .HRITHWIK SR PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 4720 of 2018 3
ORDER
In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C
the common order passed by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Perumbavoor in CMP No.435 of 2018 filed by the second respondent and CMP No.474 of 2018 filed by the petitioner for interim custody of a vehicle seized in the course of the investigation in Crime No.3683 of 2017 of Perumbavoor Police Station is challenged. The case was registered for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 380 and 506 IPC. The FI Statement disclosed that the third respondent along with a few others committed theft of the vehicle which
was in the ownership and possession of the second respondent.
allegations were these: The third respondent was the
owner of the vehicle bearing No.KL 63B390 which had
been hypothecated to the 4th respondent bank. On
23.10.2017 he sold it to the petitioner for Rs.12 lakh. The latter paid the former Rs.2,55,000/-. The
Crl.MC.No. 4720 of 2018 4
balance amount of Rs.9,45,000/- was payable to the 4th respondent bank. The petitioner availed himself of a loan from the 5th respondent financier to purchase the vehicle. On 26.3.2018 on behalf of the petitioner the 5th respondent financier paid the 4th respondent bank Rs.9,45,000/- in full and final settlement of its claim and took over the hypothecation. The third respondent gave him the original documents relating to the vehicle and handed over possession of the vehicle to him. On 12.5.2018 the third respondent informed the petitioner that the police detained him at Perumbavoor Police Station and he would be released only if the vehicle was produced before the police. The petitioner understood that the vehicle was involved in a false case. He alone is entitled to its custody. So it may be released to him.
Crl.MC.No. 4720 of 2018 5
it had been hypothecated. But thereafter, she paid
Rs.50,000/- also to the third respondent. The agreement was to the effect that the change of ownership would be caused to be entered in the registers maintained by the RTO only after the debt due to the 4th respondent bank was discharged. On the date of the transaction itself the third respondent handed over possession of the vehicle to the second
respondent. She spent Rs.4 lakh to repair the vehicle. On 20.10.2017 the third respondent along with a few others committed theft of the vehicle. The second respondent alone is entitled to the custody of
the vehicle. She prayed that it might be given to her on interim custody.
learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class found that the vehicle was in the possession of the second respondent when the police took it into their custody
and she is entitled to its custody. This is challenged in this petition.
and the respondents 2 and 5 and the learned Public
Crl.MC.No. 4720 of 2018 6
Prosecutor.
12.5.2018. The third respondent who was the original owner of the vehicle filed a claim petition before the
learned Magistrate on 14.5.2018 alleging that the
vehicle was in his exclusive ownership and possession when the police seized it. On the same day the second respondent also filed her claim petition. Apparently realising that he would be exposed the third respondent submitted that his claim petition was not pressed. Accordingly, it was dismissed as not pressed. It was thereafter, the petitioner filed his application on 25.5.2018 for interim custody of the vehicle claiming that it was in his ownership and
possession at the time of its seizure. In the
affidavit filed by the third respondent there was no whisper that he had sold it to the petitioner or the second respondent. Admittedly, his affidavit and
claim were false. That is why he abandoned the claim. Why the petition took more than 10 days to file the claim petition. There is no explanation.
Crl.MC.No. 4720 of 2018 7
purchased the vehicle from the third respondent on 10.3.2017 the second respondent has produced AnnexureA agreement executed between them. Genuineness of this document is not disputed by the third respondent. The document alleged to have been executed between the petitioner and the third respondent also has been produced as Annexure-B. This document bears the date 23.10.2017. The recitals in it show that the total
sale consideration was Rs.12 lakhs out of which the petitioner paid Rs.2,55,000/- and agreed to pay Rs.9,45,000/- to the 4th respondent bank. AnnexureR8(b) is a letter written by the State Bank of India to the Regional Transport Officer, Angamaly on 19.4.2017 stating that at the Adalath held on 19.3.2018 a settlement was arrived at and pursuant to
it the entire amount due to the bank was paid on 16.4.2018. It is undisputed that the amount paid to the bank was Rs.9,45,000/-. This was the amount the debtor agreed to pay to the bank at the Adalath held on 19.3.2018. But it is very strange that this amount finds a place in Annexure-B agreement which is purported to have been executed between the petitioner
Crl.MC.No. 4720 of 2018 8
and the third respondent one year ago i.e on 23.10.2017. This is a clear indication that AnnexureB agreement is not a genuine document.
second respondent is entitled to the custody of the vehicle. The order is not liable to be interfered with.
In the result, this Crl. M.C is dismissed. The
learned Magistrate is directed to release the vehicle to the second respondent without delay. The learned Magistrate may also consider whether it is in public interest to file a complaint against the third respondent for filing false affidavit in support of CMP No.434 of 2018.
Sd/-
K.ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE
pm
Crl.MC.No. 4720 of 2018 9
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 10-032017 ENTERED BETWEEN THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND HER HUSBAND AND THE 3RD RESPONDENT
ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE SALE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 3RD RESPONDENT
ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 13-072018 IN C.M.P NO. 435/2018 & CMP NO. 474/18 OF THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE I, PERUMBAVOOR.
ANNEXURE D TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT OF 2ND RESPONDENT
ANNEXURE E TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 18-05-2018 FILED BY THE S.I OF POLICE IN CRIME NO. 3683/2017 OF PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE-R(2)(1 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.3683/2017 ON THE FILES OF PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION
ANNEXURE-R(2)(2 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF CMP NO.326/2018 FILED BY THIS RESPONDENT
ANNEXURE-R(2)(3 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE CRL.M.P.NO.435/2018 FILED BY THIS RESPONDENT ON 14.05.2018
ANNEXURE-R(2)(4 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPLICATION AS CMP. NO.434/2018 FILED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT
ANNEXURE-R(2)(5 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPLICATION AS C.M.P.NO.474/2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER
ANNEXURE-R(2)(6 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE DOWNLOADED VERSION OF THE WEBSITE OF THE KERALA MOTOR VEHICLES DEPARTMENT EVEN ON 16.05.2018 TAKEN AT 10.52 A.M. TAKEN OUT FROM AKSHAYA CENTRE
ANNEXURE-R(2)(7 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RC PARTICULARS TAKEN ON 24.07.2018 INDICATE THAT THE 3RD RESPONDENT
ANNEXURE-R(2)(8 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13.06.2018 ISSUED BY JOINT RTO, NAYATHODU, ANGAMALLY TO THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PERUMBAVOOR
// TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the order granting interim custody of a seized vehicle to the second respondent.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Valsan
Sheeba Azad
Jinto T.P.
State Bank of India Angamaly Branch
Manappuram Finance Ltd.
Ajad
K. Abraham Mathew
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
