Allowed

Vijeesh P v. Vs State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Feb 2022Crl.MC/756/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala directed the Station House Officer to report the seizure of petitioners' motor vehicles to the jurisdictional court immediately under Section 102(3) Cr.P.C. due to their prolonged detention without court reporting.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to report the seizure of vehicles to the jurisdictional court forthwith under Section 102(3) Cr.P.C.

Vijeesh P v Vs State of Kerala — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 3^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 14TH MAGHA, 1943

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 756 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 VIJEESH P V AGED 38 YEARS SON OF VASU, PERUMPULLY, PERUMANNU, KECHERY P.O., THRISSUR. THRISSUR, PIN - 680501 2 NIMISH AGED 42 YEARS SON OF PUSHPAVATHY, PANIKKASSERY HOUSE, KANDANASSERY P.O, KANIYARKODE, THRISSUR. THRISSUR, PIN - 680602 3 AKHIL K S AGED 25 YEARS SON OF SUBRAMANIAN K.M, KUTTANKULANGARA HOUSE, PORKULAM P.O, AKATHIYUR, THRISSUR ., PIN - 680519 BY ADVS. P.MOHAMED SABAH SAIPOOJA

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER ERUMAPPETTY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT THRISSUR, PIN - 680584 3 DISTRICT GEOLOGIST THRISSUR DISTRICT, DISTRICT OFFICE OF DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,

¶10

Crl.M.C.No.756 of 2022

¶11

¶12

CHEMBUKKAV, THRISSUR DISTRICT. THRISSUR, PIN - 680020 BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶13

SR.PP - SMT. SREEJA V.

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Crl.M.C.No.756 of 2022

¶16

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Petitioners are the registered owners of motor vehicles which

¶19

were allegedly seized by the police in connection with some proceedings initiated under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act. The grievance of the petitioners is that even though the vehicles were seized as early on 28.01.2022, the matter is not yet reported to the Magistrate and the vehicles are kept idle exposed to sun and shower in police station premises. Thus they have been disabled from moving application seeking custody of the vehicles.

¶20

It is peremptory that if properties are seized, the matter has to be reported to the jurisdictional court posthaste. Therefore, the 2^nd respondent is directed to report the seizure of the vehicles to the jurisdictional court forthwith as provided under Section 102(3) of the Cr.P.C.

¶21

Crl.M.C is disposed of as above.

¶22

Sd/- K.HARIPAL JUDGE

¶23

Jms/03.02 //True Copy// P.A to Judge

¶24

Crl.M.C.No.756 of 2022

¶25

¶26

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 756/2022

¶27

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶28

Annexure1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF SWARAJ MAZDA TIPPER LORRY BEARING REGISTRATION NO. KL-46-H-8368 Annexure2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF SWARAJ MAZDA TIPPER LORRY BEARING REGISTRATION NO. KL-41-D-414 Annexure3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF JCB EXCAVATOR BEARING REGISTRATION NO. KL33-D-5695 Annexure4 TRUE COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR DATED 28.01.2022 PREPARED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE ATTACHED TO THE OFFICE OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2 Annexure5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.10.2020 IN CRL.M.C. NO. 4677/2020 OF THE HONORABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA

Vijeesh P v. Vs State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijeesh P v. Vs 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

Abhimanyu, Vs State of Kerala

Arsal Vs State of Kerala

Ruksana Vs State of Kerala

Akhil Sathyan, Vs the State of Kerala

Jamal.a Vs State of Kerala

C N Sameer Vs State of Kerala