P. C. Prasad Vs the Station House Officer

P. C. PRASAD AGED 57 YEARS S/O. LATE CHAKRAPANI, PARANGAMMOOTTIL, VAIKKAM, RANNY P. O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, (NOW RESIDING AT THAMBURU HOUSE, PALAMUKKU, PUTHOOR, KOTTARAKKARA, KARIMBINPUZHA P. O., KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 507.

¶10

BY ADVS. SREEDEVI S. V.G.SURESH(K/438/1991) ANANDHU SATHEESH(K/613/2020) DRISYA DILEEP(K/792/2020)

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER RANNI POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 672.

¶13

2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE RANNI POLICE STATION, RANNI - 689 672.

¶14

3 JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, RANNI - 689 674.

¶15

4 SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, RANNI - 689 674.

¶16

5 DEEPAMOL AGED 46 YEARS D/O. SANKARANKUTTY, THAMBURU HOUSE, PAVITHRESWARAM VILLAGE, KARIMBINPUZHA P. O., PALAMUKKU - PUTHOOR - 691 507. (NOW RESIDING AT -

¶17

W.P.(C).No.11024 of 2021 2

¶18

2025:KER:27555

¶19

C/O. INDU SUNIKUMAR, KOLLANTAZHIKATHUKADAYIL, KARIMINPUZHA P.O., PUTHOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691507)

¶20

BY ADV B.MOHANLAL

¶21

OTHER PRESENT:

¶22

GP- RIYAL DEVASSY

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

W.P.(C).No.11024 of 2021 3

¶25

2025:KER:27555

¶26

VIJU ABRAHAM, J.

¶27

W.P.(C).No.11024 of 2021

¶28

Dated this the 1^st day of April, 2025

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

The petitioner has approached this Court

¶31

seeking to quash Ext.P5.

¶32

The petitioner and the 5^th respondent are

¶33

husband and wife. Petitioner is the owner of a Maruti Alto Car bearing Registration No.KL-03T4576, but it was registered in the name of the 5^th respondent. Later, differences of opinion arose

¶34

between petitioner and 5^th respondent and the 5^th respondent stated that she is not interested in retaining her name as owner of the vehicle and handed over a request to be submitted before the 3^rd respondent and an application was submitted before

¶35

the 3^rd respondent for change of ownership and Ext.P1 certificate of registration was issued in

¶36

the name of the petitioner. Thereupon, a complaint was preferred by the 5^th respondent stating that the

¶37

vehicle has been transferred to the name of the

¶38

W.P.(C).No.11024 of 2021 4

¶39

2025:KER:27555

¶40

petitioner without her knowledge and consent. Based on the same, Ext.P2 notice was issued, to which Ext.P3 reply was submitted by the petitioner. Thereupon, further notice dated 23.03.2021 was issued to the petitioner which is produced as Ext.P5. Later on Ext.P6 lawyer notice was also issued. It is challenging Ext.P5 that the present writ petition has been filed.

¶41

The specific case of the petitioner is that the 4^th respondent has entered into a finding that change of name has been effected based on forged documents and such a finding was entered into without any materials to support the same and without giving a proper opportunity of hearing the petitioner.

¶42

The learned counsel appearing for the 5^th respondent would submit that the original registration of the vehicle was in the name of the 5^th respondent and to substantiate the same, respondent has produced Ext.R5(b)copy of the RC Book and submitted that the vehicle has been

¶43

W.P.(C).No.11024 of 2021 5

¶44

2025:KER:27555

¶45

transferred to the name of the petitioner by using

¶46

forged documents. In the said circumstance, the respondent approached the 3^rd respondent RTO, who has issued Ext.P4 notice . Therefore, it is

¶47

contended that no interference is warranted on Ext.P5 notice .

¶48

Learned Government Pleader upon instructions submitted that before issuing Ext.P5 the petitioner as well as the 5^th respondent were heard.

¶49

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 5^th respondent and the learned Government Pleader.

¶50

Though there is a finding in Ext.P5 to the effect that the transfer of certificate of registration was effected using forged documents, nothing is stated in Ext.P5 as to how the said finding was arrived at by the 3^rd respondent.

¶51

In view of the above, petitioner has raised a specific grievance that no proper opportunity was given to him before entering a finding in Ext.P5

¶52

W.P.(C).No.11024 of 2021 6

¶53

2025:KER:27555

¶54

that the transfer of ownership was effected using forged documents. I am inclined to dispose of the writ petition as follows:

¶55

Ext.P5 shall be treated as a show cause notice. The petitioner as well as the 5^th respondent shall be issued with notice of hearing and the petitioner and the 5^th respondent shall be entitled to produce documents/evidence in support of their contentions. After hearing both sides and after considering the documents/evidence produced by both sides, the 3^rd respondent shall take a fresh decision in the matter, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

¶56

sd/-

¶57

VIJU ABRAHAM,JUDGE

¶58

pm

¶59

W.P.(C).No.11024 of 2021 7

¶60

2025:KER:27555

¶61

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11024/2021

¶62

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

¶63

ExhibitR5(a)	The true copy of the judgment of this Hon’ble Court in W.P(Crl.)No.1139/2021
Exhibit R5(b)	The true copy of the certificate of registration of 2010 model Maruti Alto Car bearing No.KL 03 T 4576 in the name of the 5th respondent
Exhibit R5(c)	The true copy of the tax vehicle invoice of the vehicle dated 21/8/2010 issued by Indus Motor Company Private Ltd. to the 5th respondent
Exhibit R5(e)	The true copy of the complaint dated 25/8/2020 submitted by the 5th respondent before the District Police Chief, Kollam Rural
Exhibit R5(f)	The true copy of the tax token issued by the RTO, Pathanamthitta to the 5th respondent
ExhibitR5(d)	The true copy of the Insurance policy of the vehicle obtained by the 5th respondent from 20/8/2020 from Maruti Insurance
PETITIONER EXHIB	ITS
EXHIBIT P6	COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 16.04.21 ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P5	COPY OF NOTICE DATED 23.03.21 FROM THE 4TH RESPONDENT DIRECTING TO PRODUCE RECORDS.
EXHIBIT P4	COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 13.01.21 BY 5TH RESPONDENT ALLEGING THAT CHANGE OF NAME WAS EFFECTED WITHOUT HER KNOWLEDGE AND CONSENT.
EXHIBIT P3	COPY OF REPLY DATED 09.02.21 SUBMITTED

¶64

W.P.(C).No.11024 of 2021 8

¶65

2025:KER:27555

¶66

BY THE PETITIONER.

¶67

EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 29.01.21 FROM THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶68

EXHIBIT P1

¶69

COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER.

P. C. Prasad v. the Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. C. Prasad v. the Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Eco-Bio Fertilizer Pvt. Ltd, Vs State of Kerala

Rajan Thomas Vs Deputy Superintendent of Police

Sajeevan C.K., Vs Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Muralidharan Nair Vs National Highway Authority of India

C Indira Devi Vs the Chirakkara Grama Panchayat

The Neyyattinkara Primary Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. No.T 417 Vs State of Kerala