Remanded

Vineeth v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Jul 2023Crl.MC/112/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala set aside Magistrate orders denying interim custody of a vehicle. The court directed the Magistrate to reconsider CMP No.2641/2022 and grant custody to the registered owner, the petitioner, pending investigation into allegations of forgery.

What did the court decide?

Set aside prior orders denying custody; directed Magistrate to reconsider CMP No.2641/2022 and grant interim custody to the applicant with appropriate conditions imposed.

Vineeth Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICERAJAVIJAYARAGHAVANV
FRIDAY,THE7THDAYOFJULY2023/16THASHADHA,1945
CRL.MCNO.2382OF2023

¶3

PETITIONER/PETITIONER/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶4

ALAMEENHAFIZAMEER
S/OAMEERHAMSA
OPPOSITEABAD,VIZHINJAMVILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695042.
BYADVS.
G.SUDHEER
R.HARIKRISHNAN(H-308)
SMRITHIS.S.

¶5

RESPONDENTS/COUNTER PETITIONER/STATE AND RIVAL CLAIMANT:

¶6

1STATEOFKERALA
REPRESENTEDBYPUBLICPROSECUTOR,
HIGHCOURTOFKERALA,PIN-682031.
2SRI.VINEETH
AGED31YEARS
S/O.VENUGOPAL,KAROOTHPUTHENVEEDU,ALLOOR,
PATTITHARA,PALAKKADDISTRICT,PIN-679534.

¶7

SRI.TRRENJITH,SR.PP

¶8

THISCRIMINALMISC.CASEHAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON
07.07.2023,ALONGWITHCrl.MC.112/2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAY
PASSEDTHEFOLLOWING:

¶9

CRL.MCNOS.2382&112OF2023

¶10

¶11

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶12

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V FRIDAY, THE 7^TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 112 OF 2023

¶13

PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶14

VINEETH
AGED31YEARS
S/OVENUGOPALRESIDINGATKAROOTHPUTHENVEEDU,ALLOOR,
PATTITHARA,PALAKKAD,PIN-679305.

¶15

BYADVS.
R.SUNILKUMAR
A.SALINILAL
ARUNKRISHNA
NIKITHASURESH

¶16

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

¶17

1STATEOFKERALA
REPRESENTEDPUBLICPROSECUTOR,HIGHCOURTOFKERALAAT
ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶18

*ADDL R2 AL AMEEN HAFIS AMEER

¶19

S/OAMEERHAMSARESIDINGATOPP.OFABAD,AMEERJUICEHUB,
VIZHINJAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695042.
*ADDLR2ISIMPLEADEDASPERORDERDATED16.2.2023IN
CRL.M.ANO.1/2023INCRLM.C112/2023.
SRI.T.RRENJITH,SR.PP

¶20

THISCRIMINALMISC.CASEHAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON
07.07.2023,ALONGWITHCrl.MC.2382/2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAY
PASSEDTHEFOLLOWING:

¶21

CRL.MCNOS.2382&112OF2023

¶22

¶23

ORDER

¶24

[Crl.MCNos.2382/2023,112/2023]

¶25

Both these petitions are filed challenging the order dated 17.11.2022 & 23.11.2022 in CMP Nos.2641 of 2022 & 2691 of 2022 in Crime No.1022 of 2022. The above applications were filed under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Code” for brevity) for getting interim custody of a Scorpio car bearing Registration No.KL 01 BA 2475. Both the applications were dismissed by the learned Magistrate, holding that neither of the parties before the Court had made out sufficient grounds for securing interim custody.

¶26

Short facts are as under:-

¶27

On 10.10.2022, Crime No.1022 of 2022 of the Vizhinjam Police Station

¶28

was registered at the instance of a certain Al Ameen Hafiz Ameer, the petitioner in Crl.M.C No.2382 of 2023. In his complaint before the police, he alleged that he was the absolute owner in title and possession of a car bearing Registration No.KL 01 BA 2475. He contended that he placed an advertisement on an online portal to sell the car and one Sirajudeen responded to the same. He approached the informant on 24.6.2022 and offered to purchase the vehicle. A sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid by way of cash, and for the balance amount, a cheque for a sum of Rs.3 lakhs was issued by the aforesaid Sirajudeen. On 25.7.2022, when the cheque was presented, the same was dishonored for want of funds. Immediately thereafter, the informant is alleged to have contacted the aforesaid Sirajudeen and demanded back the vehicle. However, Sirajudeen

¶29

CRL.MCNOS.2382&112OF2023

¶30

¶31

refused to oblige. The informant alleges that the aforesaid Sirajudeen forged his signature and sold the vehicle to a third party without paying the amount due to him. Based on the above allegation, the aforesaid crime was registered on 10.10.2022 under Sections 420 and 468 of the IPC.

¶32

In the course of investigation, it was revealed that Sirajudeen had sold the vehicle to one Nizar, who in turn sold the vehicle to Sri. Vineeth, the petitioner in Crl.M.C No.112 of 2023. The contention of Sri. Vineeth is that the vehicle sale agreement was entered into on 20.8.2022 between Vineeth and Nizar, and that he had paid the entire consideration on 25.8.2022, and thereafter the registration of the vehicle was transferred to his name. He contends that the vehicle was seized from his possession by the police. Being the registered owner of the vehicle, as per the records maintained by the Motor Vehicles Department, he is entitled to interim custody of the vehicle was his contention. He also pointed out that though the vehicle was allegedly taken away by Sirajudeen on 24.6.2022 after paying a sum of Rs.50,000/-, the information was lodged, and the crime was registered only on 10.10.2022, almost four months after the transaction between the informant and Sirajudeen.

¶33

I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone

¶34

through the records.

¶35

From the narration of events, it is evident that the registered owner of the vehicle at the moment is Vineeth. He had purchased the car on

¶36

CRL.MCNOS.2382&112OF2023

¶37

¶38

25.8.2022. Though the vehicle was allegedly taken away on 24.6.2022, the information which led to the registration of the crime was furnished only on 10.10.2022. Going by the FI statement, the grievance of the de facto complainant appears to be that after having taken the vehicle on a promise of payment of the sale price, Sirajudeen sold the car without paying the balance amount. This is a matter to be investigated. I find that the vehicle was seized in the month of October 2022, and the same is lying exposed to the vagaries of nature. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that directions can be issued to the learned Magistrate to grant the interim custody of the vehicle to the applicant in C.M.P.No.2641/2022 by imposing appropriate conditions.

¶39

Resultantly, these petitions are disposed of by issuing the following

¶40

directions:

¶41

a) The order dated 17.11.2022 in C.M.P.No.2641/2022 and order dated 23.11.2022 in C.M.P.No.2691/2022 are set aside.

¶42

b) The learned Magistrate is directed to reconsider CMP No.2641/2022 and pass orders granting interim custody of the vehicle to the applicant thereby imposing appropriate conditions.

¶43

c) It is made clear that in the course of the investigation, if there is a change of circumstances, and if it is revealed that it is pursuant to an act of forgery that the transfer of vehicle was effected, it would be open to the

¶44

CRL.MCNOS.2382&112OF2023

¶45

¶46

informant to approach the learned Magistrate for modification of this order or for varying the same and if such an application is filed, the learned Magistrate

¶47

would be at liberty to consider the same and pass appropriate orders.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE

¶50

Sru

¶51

CRL.MCNOS.2382&112OF2023

¶52

¶53

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 112/2023

¶54

PETITIONERANNEXURES
Annexure1TRUECOPYOFTHEAGREEMENTDATED20/8/2022
BETWEENTHEPETITIONERANDNIZAR.
Annexure2TRUECOPYOFTHEPRINTOUTOFTHEPHOTOGRAPH
Annexure3TRUECOPYOFTHEPRESENTREGISTRATION
CERTIFICATEISSUEDINFAVOUROFTHEPETITIONER
REGARDINGCARBEARINGREGISTRATIONNUMBERKL01
BA2475.

¶55

Annexure4TRUECOPYOFTHEINSURANCEREGARDINGVEHICLE
BEARINGREGISTRATIONNUMBERKL01BA2475.
Annexure5TRUECOPYOFRECEIPTISSUEDBYTHESUB
INSPECTOROFPOLICE.
Annexure6TRUECOPYOFTHEFIRINCRIMENUMBER1022/22OF
VIZHINJAMPOLICESTATION.
Annexure7THECERTIFIEDCOPYOFTHEORDERINCMPNUMBER
2641/22INCRIMENUMBER1022/22ONTHEFILEOF
HONOURABLEJUDICIALFIRSTCLASSMAGISTRATE
TEMPORARYCOURT,NEYYATTINKARA.

¶56

CRL.MCNOS.2382&112OF2023

¶57

¶58

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2382/2023

¶59

PETITIONER’SANNEXURES

¶60

AnnexureA1COPYOFTHEFIRANDFISINCRIMENO.1022/J2022
OFVIZHINJAMPOLICESTATION.

¶61

AnnexureA2COPYOFCMPNO.2691/2022ONTHEFILEOF
TEMPORARYJMFC,NEYYATTINKARADT12.11.2022.
AnnexureA3COPYOFTHEREGISTRATIONCERTIFICATEWITH
REGARDSTOKL/01-BA2475.
AnnexureA4COPYOFTHEINSURANCEPOLICYWITHRESPECTTO
KL-01/BA2475.
AnnexureA5COPYOFTHEORDERINCMPNO.2691/2022ONTHE
FILEOFTEMPORARYJUDICIALMAGISTRATEOFFIRST
CLASS,NEYYATTINKARADT23.11.2022.

Vineeth v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vineeth 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

Arya v B Vs State of Kerala

Shajuttan @ Shaju Vs Nidheesh

Fr. Thomas Peeliyanikkal Vs State of Kerala

Vipin Mathew, Vs A.P.M. Mohammed Hanish

Chemancheri Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No. (F 779) Vs State of Kerala

Noufal, Vs State of Kerala