IMPORTANT POINTS
If the petitioner is the owner of the car, there can be no objection to the release of the vehicle to his interim custody. However, it is not proper for this Court to pass any orders releasing the vehicle to the interim custody of the petitioner without verifying the documents. It is necessarily a procedure to be adopted by the court below.

ORDER :

More than a period of seventeen years is over since the highest court of the country had given directions to the Magistrates that they shall exercise the powers under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') properly and promptly. It is unfortunate that, in some cases, orders are passed mechanically and casually without really absorbing the spirit of those directions given by the Apex Court.

2. In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283, the Supreme Court has considered the scope of invoking Section 451 of the Code in respect of vehicles where it has been observed as follows:

“15. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Dholakia appearing for the State of Gujarat further submitted that at present in the police station premises, number of vehicles are kept unattended and vehicles become junk day by day. It is his contention that appropriate directions should be given to the Magistrates who are dealing with such questions to hand over such vehicles to its owner or to the person from whom the said vehicles are seized by taking appropriate bond and the guarantee for the return of the said vehicles if required by the Court at any point of time.

16. However, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that this question of handing over vehicles to the person from whom it is seized or to its true owner is always a matter of litigation and a lot of arguments are advanced by the concerned persons.

17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles.

18. ......... In any case, before handing over possession of such vehicles, appropriate photographs of the said vehicle should be taken and detailed panchanama should be prepared”.

3. The petitioner herein is said to be the registered owner of the car KL 48 K 3288 which was involved in Crime No.574/2019 of Kunnamkulam police station. It is a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 326 and 308 read with 34 I.P.C. The prosecution case is that the accused intentionally drove the aforesaid car towards the de facto complainant and his friends causing them injuries and that they made attempt to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder by doing such act.

4. The petitioner is not an accused in the case. He readily produced the car at the police station on 22.05.2019, when he was directed to do so. The investigating officer seized the car and produced it before the court.

5. The petitioner filed application under Section 451 of the Code (mistakenly stated as Section 457 in the application) for releasing the car to his interim custody. The learned Magistrate dismissed the aforesaid application as per Annexure-A4 order. The order passed by the learned Magistrate reads as follows:

“The petition is filed by the petitioner under section 457 of Cr.P.C to release the car bearing register number KL-48-K-3288 which is involved in Crime 574/2019 of Kunnamkulam Police Station.

SHO filed report stating that the vehicle is required for the investigation and further detention is required. The petitioner has no case that the investigation is complete. So the application is not allowed at this stage of case.

In the result, the petition is dismissed.”

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this petition under Section 482 of the Code.

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

7. The investigating officer had filed a report in the court below stating that the car belonged to the petitioner but it may not be released to him because the witnesses had to identify it.

8. Learned Magistrate blindl