Allowed

Balan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Mar 2019Crl.MC/1803/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against a Magistrate's order refusing release of an accident vehicle. The Court held that the absence of insurance can be addressed by requiring sufficient security and directing the Magistrate to release the vehicle on appropriate conditions.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was set aside and the learned Magistrate was directed to release the vehicle by imposing appropriate conditions.

Balan Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1941

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1803 of 2019

¶6

CMP 656/2019 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KODUNGALLUR CRIME NO. 217/2019 OF Kodungallur Police Station, Thrissur

¶7

PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶8

BALAN, S/O. KRISHNAN, PONATH HOUSE, LIGHT HOUSE DESOM, AZHEEKODE VILLAGE, KODUNGALLOOR TALUK, REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER RATHEESH, AGED 41, S/O. BALAN, PONATH HOUSE, LIGHT HOUSE DESOM, AZHEEKODE VILLAGE, KODUNGALLOOR.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.M.JITHESH MENON

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KODUNGALLOOR, THROUGH PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 31.

¶12

SRI RAMESH CHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Crl.MC.No. 1803 of 2019

¶15

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code” for brevity).

¶18

The petitioner herein is the RC owner of a Stage carrier bearing registration No KL-47-F-7517. On 8.2.2019, the vehicle was allegedly driven in a rash and negligent manner leading to an accident involving a student. Crime No.217 of 2019 was registered under section 279 and 337 of the IPC. The petitioner through his power of attorney holder filed an application to get the vehicle released under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate took note of the fact that the vehicle was not covered by a valid policy of insurance and concluded that the conductor had no license. Holding that the vehicle was being plied in violation of the permit conditions rejected the application.

¶19

The said order is under challenge.

¶20

The first reason for refusing to release of the vehicle on interim custody is the absence of a valid insurance cover. However, this has been taken care of by incorporating Section 391A in the Rules. It deals with the procedure to be adopted when the vehicle is not covered by a valid policy of insurance. Section 391A is extracted

¶21

Crl.MC.No. 1803 of 2019

¶22

¶23

below for easy reference.

¶24

“ 391 A. Prohibition against release of motor vehicle involved in accident .-

¶25

(1) No court shall release a motor vehicle involved in an accident resulting in death or bodily injury or damage to property, when such vehicle is not covered by the policy of insurance against third party risks taken in the name of owner or when the owner fails to furnish copy of such insurance policy despite demand by investigating police officer, unless and until the owner furnishes sufficient security to the satisfaction of the court to pay compensation that may be awarded in a claim case arising out of such accident.

¶26

(2) Where the motor vehicle is not covered by a policy of insurance against third party risks, or when the owner of the motor vehicle fails to furnish copy of such policy in circumstance mentioned in sub-rule(1), the motor vehicle shall be sold off in public auction by the Magistrate having jurisdiction over the area where accident occurred, on expiry of three months of the vehicle being taken in possession by the investigating police officer, and proceeds thereof shall be deposited with the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in question, within fifteen days for the purpose of satisfying the compensation that may have been awarded, or

¶27

Crl.MC.No. 1803 of 2019

¶28

¶29

may be awarded in a claim case arising out of such accident.”

¶30

In view of the above, the registered owner can be directed

¶31

to furnish sufficient security to the satisfaction of the court to pay compensation that may be awarded in a claim case arising out of such accident while releasing the vehicle. Insofar as the license of the conductor is concerned, the petitioner has produced Annexure-A8 license issued to Shibu, the conductor of the bus.

¶32

The order is therefore set aside. The learned Magistrate is directed to release the vehicle by imposing appropriate conditions.

¶33

This petition is disposed of.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

DSV/26.3.19

¶38

Crl.MC.No. 1803 of 2019

¶39

¶40

APPENDIX

¶41

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶42

ANNEXURE A-1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE VEHICLE KL-47/F.7517. ANNEXURE A-2 TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER'S VEHICLE DATED 9-5-2017.

¶43

ANNEXURE A-3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED ON 1-3-2019. ANNEXURE A-4 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR.NO.0217/2019 DATED 8- 2-2019.

¶44

ANNEXURE A-5 TRUE COPY OF PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 13-2-2019. ANNEXURE A-6 TRUE COPY OF THE INSURANCE POLICY ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM 11-2-2019 TO 10-2-2020. ANNEXURE A-7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15-2-2019 IN CM.P.NO.656/2019 IN CR.NO.217/2019. ANNEXURE A-8 TRUE COPY OF THE CONDUCTOR LICENSE OF THE ORIGINAL CONDUCTOR DATED 13-12-2016.

¶45

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶46

NIL

¶47

//TRUE COPY//

¶48

P.A.TO JUDGE

Balan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balan 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendran Vs State of Kerala

Y.M.Bright Vs State of Kerala

Joseph Edward Jacob, Vs the State of Kerala

Vinod Vs State of Kerala

Shajimon Vs State of Kerala

Ibrahim Shameem Vs Abdul Rahiman