Dismissed

R. Mohanan v. Station House Officer

Kerala HC3 Jan 2023Crl.MC/831/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a criminal miscellaneous petition challenging a Magistrate’s order granting interim custody of a seized vehicle to its registered owner. The court held that Section 451 Cr.P.C. proceedings do not adjudicate title and cannot override the registration status pending the outcome of an appeal against the Transport Officer’s cancellation order.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.831/22 dismissed; dismissal does not preclude petitioner from invoking other legal remedies.

R. Mohanan Vs Station House Officer — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.M.C.No.831/22

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. TUESDAY, THE 3^RD DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 13TH POUSHA, 1944 CRL.MC NO. 831 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶7

R.MOHANAN, AGED 41 YEARS, POOSARI HOUSE, PERMALAKARA,KANTHALLOOR VILLAGE, DEVKULAMTALUK, IDUKKI, PIN – 685 620.

¶8

BY ADV.S.NIDHEESH

¶9

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MARAYUR POLICE STATION, MARAYUR, IDUKKI, PIN – 685 620.

¶11

2 SHAMON.S.A, AGED 36 YEARS, SRAMBIKKAL HOUSE, MANNAMKANDOM VILLAGE, ADIMALI P.O, ADIMALI, IDUKKI, PIN – 685 620.

¶12

BY ADV.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY

¶13

ADV.SEENA C -PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.M.C.No.831/22

O R D E R

The petitioner approached this Court challenging the Annexure-2 order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Devikulam, by which the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 451 Cr.P.C. was dismissed. The facts which led to the filing of this Crl.M.C. are as follows:

¶19

The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of a motor vehicle bearing registration No.KL-05J-6917. The vehicle is a jeep, which was earlier seized by the Forest Department for the illicit transport of sandalwood. The said jeep was confiscated by the authorities concerned and was put for auction sale on 23.01.2009 and 24.04.2009. The petitioner participated in the said auction and the bid submitted by the petitioner was accepted, and the sale was confirmed in his favour as per the order dated 19.05.2009. Annexure 1 is the certificate of sale issued in favour of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that later the said vehicle was entrusted by the petitioner to one Anthony Raju, who is the friend of the petitioner. It is pointed out

¶20

Crl.M.C.No.831/22

¶21

¶22

that, he did not return the said vehicle and the petitioner was made to believe that the said vehicle was stolen from Tamil Nadu and even though a complaint was submitted before the Tamil Nadu Police, the said vehicle could not be traced out. According to the petitioner, the entrustment of the said vehicle was in the year 2009 and the vehicle was reportedly stolen in the year 2009 itself. Later, in the year 2020, he happened to see the said vehicle, and upon enquiry, the said Anthony Raju informed the petitioner that he had entrusted the said vehicle to some other persons with whom he had some financial transactions.

¶23

The petitioner submitted a complaint in such circumstances before the Marayoor Police Station. Accordingly, Crime No.560 of 2020 was registered against Anthony Raju for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 406 and 420 IPC. As part of the investigation of the said crime, the aforesaid vehicle was seized by the Police and C.M.P.No.998 of 2021 was filed by the petitioner before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Devikulam under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. Simultaneously, the 2^nd respondent herein, from whose possession the vehicle was seized

¶24

Crl.M.C.No.831/22

¶25

¶26

and who happened to be the registered owner of the vehicle has filed C.M.P.No.1030 of 2021. The said applications were considered together by the learned Magistrate and disposed of by a common order, as evidenced by Annexure-11. As per the same, the application submitted by the petitioner was dismissed and the application submitted by the 2^nd respondent was allowed by granting custody of the vehicle to the 2^nd respondent, subject to certain conditions. This Crl.M.C. is filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed in C.M.P.No.998 of 2021, passed by the learned Magistrate.

¶27

Heard Sri.Nidheesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.Seena C., learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri.Suman Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Magistrate dismissed the application submitted by the petitioner without any reasonable grounds. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent would seriously oppose the said contention. The 2^nd respondent had filed a detailed objection, wherein it is mentioned that the said

¶29

Crl.M.C.No.831/22

¶30

¶31

vehicle was purchased by the 2^nd respondent from Anthony Raju, who had obtained possession of the said vehicle from the petitioner herein when the petitioner had transferred the said vehicle to him for valuable consideration. It is pointed out that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser of the vehicle, and he purchased the same by paying the value for the same.

¶32

On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor, upon instructions submitted that the investigation in this case is already completed and a refer report has been submitted on 26.08.2021. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that as against the refer report, the petitioner had already filed a protest complaint, and the same is now pending consideration before the learned Magistrate.

¶33

I have gone through the records and heard the contentions raised by all the parties. The specific contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is the most competent person to whom the custody of the vehicle is entrusted. According to him, since the vehicle was transferred to the 2^nd respondent herein in an illegal manner, he

¶34

Crl.M.C.No.831/22

¶35

¶36

immediately submitted the complaint before the Police and also submitted another complaint before the authorities under Motor Vehicle Department. Acting upon the same, the Joint Regional Transport Officer, Devikulam, had issued Annexure-8 order canceling the registration in favour of the 2^nd respondent and requiring the petitioner to submit the necessary application for transferring the registration in favour of the petitioner. However, the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent points out that the said order was passed without notice to him, and therefore, he had already filed a statutory appeal challenging the said order, and it is now pending consideration before the appellate authority.

¶37

As far as the scope of adjudication under Section 451 Cr.P.C. is concerned, what is relevant is to find out the most competent person to whom the vehicle is to be entrusted. Under no circumstances can the proceedings under Section 451 Cr.P.C. be treated as a proceeding intended to adjudicate upon the title over the vehicle in question. In this case, even according to the petitioner, he lost the possession of the vehicle ten years ago, and

¶38

Crl.M.C.No.831/22

¶39

¶40

he came to know that the registration of the vehicle was illegally transferred in favour of the 2^nd respondent only after almost ten years. However, the fact remains that the vehicle at the relevant time has been registered in the name of the 2^nd respondent herein. The petitioner indeed has a specific case that such transfer was affected clandestinely without following the proper procedure contemplated and the registration now stands cancelled as per Annexure-8 order. However, the Annexure-8 order would reveal that the same was passed without hearing the 2^nd respondent and an appeal at his instance is now pending consideration. On going through the objections raised by the 2^nd respondent, it is discernible that the contention put forward by him is that, the said vehicle was transferred by the petitioner himself in favour of Anthony Raju, the accused in the case, who in turn transferred the vehicle to the petitioner. To some extent, the fact that the vehicle stands registered in the name of the 2nd respondent fortifies the aforesaid contention. It is discernible from the order passed by the learned Magistrate that, one of the crucial aspects which was taken note of by learned Magistrate is

¶41

Crl.M.C.No.831/22

¶42

¶43

the delay of more than ten years on the part of the petitioner in making a claim. Of course, the petitioner has a contention that he was misled by the accused that the vehicle was stolen from the possession of the accused and even though a complaint was submitted before the police authorities, there were no fruitful results therefrom. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, that is a matter to be established after taking evidence. It is also relevant to note that, in the investigation conducted by the police, the case advanced by the petitioner was not found to be sustainable, and a refer report has been submitted. Now the case is pending before the learned Magistrate based on a protest complaint submitted by the petitioner.

¶44

On the other hand, the 2^nd respondent has a specific case that the petitioner had transferred the said vehicle to the said Anthony Raju, the accused herein, who in turn had transferred the vehicle to the 2^nd respondent herein. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that, as per the report submitted by the police before the court below in response to the application submitted by the petitioner, the

¶45

Crl.M.C.No.831/22

¶46

¶47

vehicle was produced by the accused (Anthony Raju) before the police after taking the said vehicle from the possession of the 2^nd respondent herein. Therefore, it is pointed out that there are some discrepancies concerning the case advanced by the 2^nd respondent and the report of the police with regard to the seizure of the vehicle affected by the police. To be precise, the specific case of the 2^nd respondent is that the vehicle was seized from his possession, but as per the version of the police, the vehicle was produced by the Anthony Raju, after taking the vehicle from the possession of the 2^nd respondent. However, the fact is that in both the said versions vehicle was in possession of the 2^nd respondent at the relevant time, and he is also the registered owner of the said vehicle. Since the proceedings under Section 451 Cr. P.C is not meant for adjudication of title between the parties, the scope of the said proceeding is to find out the most competent person with whom the vehicle can be entrusted. In this case, admittedly, when the crime was registered, and the seizure was affected, the 2^nd respondent was the registered owner of the said vehicle, and the vehicle was also in his possession. As far as the claim put

¶48

Crl.M.C.No.831/22

¶49

¶50

forward by the petitioner is concerned, there is a considerable delay of ten years, and even though there is an explanation forthcoming for the said delay, the police after investigation found otherwise. Though a protest complaint is filed against the said police report, the contentions raised by the petitioner in such complaint is yet to be adjudicated. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the decision taken by the learned Magistrate to release the said vehicle in favour of the 2^nd respondent cannot be said to be defective in any manner. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the decision taken by the learned Magistrate with regard to the interim custody of the said vehicle.

¶51

In such circumstances, I do not find any merit in this Crl.MC and accordingly, it is dismissed. However, it is clarified that the dismissal of this Crl.M.C. shall not preclude the petitioner from invoking the other legal remedies available to him to take possession of the vehicle.

¶52

Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE

DG/7.1.23

Crl.M.C.No.831/22

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 831/2022

¶57

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶58

Annexure1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 25.5.2009. Annexure2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE DFO, MUNNAR TO THE RTO, ADIMALI DATED 24.7.2012. Annexure3 TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME 560/2020 OF MARAYUR POLICE STATION DATED 10.10.2020 Annexure4 TRUE COPY OF THE CMP 998/2021 IN CRIME 560/2020 FILED BEFORE JFCM COURT, DEVIKULAM DATED 29.4.2021 Annexure5 TRUE COPY OF THE CMP 1030/2021 IN CRIME 560/2020 FILED BEFORE JFCM COURT, DEVIKULAM DATED 24.6.2021. Annexure6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C) 14143/21 DATED 27.7.2021. Annexure7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A 1/2021 IN W.P(C) 14143/21 DATED 6.8.2021 Annexure8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER TO THE PETITIONER DATED 28.12.2021 Annexure9 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED IN CMP 1030/21 DATED 30.7.2021 Annexure10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE SHO, ADIMALI OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RTI ACT DATED 13.12.2021

¶59

Crl.M.C.No.831/22

¶60

¶61

Annexure11 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP 998/21 OF JFCM, DEVIKULAM DATED 24.1.2022

¶62

RESPONDENT ANNEXURES

¶63

Annexure-R2(a) A true copy of the report dated 04.05.2021 by the S.I of Police, Marayoor produced in CMP No.998/2021 Annexure-R2(b) A true copy of the report dated 28.06.2021 by the Sub Inspector of Police, Marayoor Police Station produced before the JFCM, Devikulam Annexure-R2(c) The refer report in Crime No.520/2020 filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Marayoor Police Station dated 26.08.2021

¶64

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶65

Annexure 12 TRUE COPY OF THE PROTEST COMPLAINT CMP 709/22 DATED 12/8/2022

R. Mohanan v. Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Mohanan v. Station House Officer

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

The Integrated Rubian Exports Limited, Vs the State of Kerala

The Integrated Rubian Exports Limited, Vs the State of Kerala

Tomy Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Faisal C.K Vs State of Kerala

Ashraf Tt Vs State of Kerala

Nebu John Vs State of Kerala