Allowed

Anil.K.R. v. Manakkodam Raveendran Vaidyar

Kerala HC19 Jun 2019Crl.MC/3688/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the Sessions Judge's order releasing the father's vehicle to the complainant. The Sessions Judge had reversed the Magistrate's interim custody order. The Court allowed the petition, set aside the Sessions Judge's order, and restored the Magistrate's order permitting the petitioner to retain the vehicle as the complaint was referred as false. Disposed on 19.06.2019.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of Sessions Judge set aside; Magistrate's order granting custody to petitioner restored.

Anil.K.R. Vs Manakkodam Raveendran Vaidyar — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 29TH JYAISHTA, 1941

¶5

Crl.MC.No.3688 of 2009

¶6

CRRP 16/2009 of DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA

¶7

CMP 1509/2009 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, CHERTHALA

¶8

PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/COUNTER PETITONER:

¶9

ANIL.K.R. S/O.RAVEENDRAN VAIDYAR, KADAVIL HOUSE, KESAVALAYAM, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H.

¶11

RESPONDENTS/REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER & STATE:

¶12

1 MANAKKODAM RAVEENDRAN VAIDYAR

¶13

S/O.KESAVAN VAIDYAR, KESAVA VILASAM VEETTIL, CMC-3, CHERTHALA NORTH VILLAGE, CHERTHALA.

¶14

2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

3 ADDL.R3. DR.JAYAPAL AGED 63 YEARS S/O RAVINDRAN VAIDYAN, KESAVA VILASAM, C.M.C.-3, CHERTHALA PO, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688524.

¶16

4 ADDL.R4.

¶17

SMT. PRABHAVATHY AGED 60 YEARS W/O SUGATHAN, KESAVA VILASAM, C.M.C.-3, CHERTHALA PO, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688524.

¶18

5 ADDL.R5. SMT. GEETHA AGED 58 YEARS

¶19

Crl.MC.No.3688 of 2009

¶20

¶21

“GEETHAM”, C.M.C.-3, CHERTHALA PO, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688524.

¶22

6 ADDL.R6. SHRI.PRASANNA KUMAR AGED 56 YEARS KESAVA VILASAM, C.M.C.-3, CHERTHALA PO, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688524.

¶23

7 ADDL.R7. SHRI. PRADEEP KUMAR AGED 53 YEARS KESAVA VILASAM, C.M.C.-3, CHERTHALA PO, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688524.

¶24

(ADDITIONAL R3 TO R7 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 15/03/2018 IN CRL. MA NO.1803/2014)

¶25

BY ADV. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶26

SMT M K PUSHPALATHA SR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶27

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

Crl.MC.No.3688 of 2009

¶29

¶30

ORDER

¶31

The father of the petitioner herein filed a complaint before the Cherthala Police Station alleging that the vehicle, which was owned by him and registered as KL-7M-5774, was entrusted with the petitioner herein, who is a driver by profession. It is alleged that the petitioner forged documents and on its basis, availed huge loans. On the basis of these allegations, Crime No.13 of 2019 of the Cherthala Police Station was registered. The vehicle was seized by the police and was produced before the learned Magistrate.

¶32

Separate applications for interim custody were preferred. The learned Magistrate considering the facts and circumstances, granted interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner. The said order was challenged before the Court of Session. By Annexure III order, the learned Sessions Judge reversed the finding of the learned Magistrate and the vehicle was ordered to be released to the de facto complainant on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.6 lakhs with two solvent sureties for the like sum. The instant petition is filed challenging the said order.

¶33

It appears that while this petition was pending before this Court, the father of the petitioner, who is the party respondent herein, left for his heavenly abode. Though the legal heirs were impleaded as

¶34

Crl.MC.No.3688 of 2009 4

¶35

additional respondents and notice were served, they have not appeared.

¶36

When the matter was taken up today, the learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that after completion of investigation, refer report has been submitted before the jurisdictional Magistrate. It is also submitted that the condition imposed by the learned Sessions Judge was not complied with by the father of the petitioner and the vehicle is still lying in the precincts of the Police Station.

¶37

I have considered the submissions advanced. Now that the

¶38

crime has been referred as false, the possession of the vehicle will have to be restored back to the petitioner herein as no one has come forward with a better claim.

¶39

This petition will stand allowed. The order passed by the learned Sessions Judge will stand set aside and the order passed by the learned Magistrate will stand restored.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶42

IAP

¶43

Crl.MC.No.3688 of 2009

¶44

¶45

APPENDIX

¶46

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶47

ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER MADE IN CMP NO.1509/2009 AND 1620/2009 IN CRIME NO.13/2009 OF CHERTHALA POLICE STATION VIDE ORDER DATED 08/04/2009.

¶48

ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05/09/2008 SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE FINANCIER.

¶49

ANNEXURE III TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER PASSED IN CRL.RP NO.16/2009 AND 17/2009 BY THE SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA AGAINST ORDERS PASSED IN CMP NO.1509/2009 AND CMP NO.1620/2009 BY THE JFCM COURT, CHERTHALA.

¶50

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

Anil.K.R. v. Manakkodam Raveendran Vaidyar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil.K.R. v. Manakkodam Raveendran Vaidyar

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.K.Shajahan Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Subhash, Vs State of Kerala

Sajan, Vs Devarajan

Aneesh Vs State of Kerala

Babu @ Praveen, Vs State of Kerala

Vishak Chandra Vs State of Kerala