1. The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No. 815 of 2017 of Perinthalmanna Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 351 and 379 IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 21.04.2017, at about 1.11.30 a.m., the accused committed theft of one Corolla Altis Car from the residence of the de facto complainant on behalf of Finance Company. The crime was registered on the basis of a private complaint forwarded under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.

3. The petitioner is a financier in Chennai. The de facto complainant availed a hire purchase loan from the petitioner for purchasing a Corolla Altis Car bearing registration No. KL 10AM/52. As per the hire purchase agreement dated 19.10.2016, the complainant undertook to repay a sum of Rs.6,13,000/-in 30 monthly instalments; but he remitted only two instalments. The hire purchase agreement provides that the hirer will surrender the vehicle if he fails to pay any monthly instalments and the financier is free to re-possess the vehicle in such contingencies. The petitioner was served with a demand notice intimating him to repay the instalments or surrender the vehicle. Accordingly, the vehicle was voluntarily surrendered by the complainant to the agents of the petitioner at Manjeri. But the vehicle was not in good condition when it was surrendered. Thereafter, the petitioner has issued Annexure A5 notice to the de facto complainant demanding to pay the instalments due together with expenses and charges and to regain possession of the vehicle. Since there was no response, the petitioner has thereafter issued Annexure A6 notice to the de facto complainant. In response to the same, the de facto complainant has given Annexure A7 reply admitting the default in repayments.

4. The de facto complainant has been impleaded in the case as additional second respondent and he entered appearance through counsel. According to the de facto complainant, the vehicle has been seized by the petitioner from his residence without his consent. Even though he has defaulted payment of the amount in lieu of the higher purchase agreement executed between himself and the petitioner, the petitioner has no right to take away the vehicle forcefully. It is also submitted that the de facto complainant is the owner of the vehicle and the RC book stands in his name. Now after the seizure of the vehicle, the petitioner is misusing the vehicle and it will definitely give rise to a liability to the petitioner. Therefore, he has sought for a direction to the petitioner to surrender the vehicle before the court and to get possession of the vehicle by an order from the Court.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the intention of the petitioner is to get back the vehicle without any authority and in case he surrenders the vehicle before the court, that will give a chance to the de facto complainant to get the vehicle in this custody from the court itself.

6. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor as well. He has also submitted that the petitioner may surrender the vehicle before the court and get it back by court order.

7. I have perused the Case diary files, in which the learned Public Prosecutor has filed a report wherein it is stated that the petitioner has seized the vehicle which was kept at the residence of the de facto complainant and that the petitioner is not ready to surrender the vehicle before the Police Station. Moreover, the petitioner has seized the said vehicle without the consent of the de facto complainant and that he was riding the vehicle for a long distance in a very high speed, for which notices were issued to him by the concerned authority demanding to remit fine.

8. On the strength of the report filed by the SHO, Perinthalmanna Police Station, the counsel for the de fact complainant has submitted that if the petitioner uses the vehicle for any illegal purpose, that will also create some liabilities to the de facto complainant.

9. The learned counse