The main legal point established in the judgment is the expeditious and judicious exercise of powers under Sec.451 of the Cr.P.C., the need for proper documentation and procedures for custody and disposal of seized vehicles, as emphasized in the Apex Court decisions.

ORDER :

The order under challenge is the one at Anx.A5 dated 29.5.2015 rendered by the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Adoor in Crl.M.P.No.6470/2014 in C.P.No.19/2015, whereby the request of the petitioner under Sec.451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected. The petitioner herein is the petitioner in Anx.A-4 Crl.M.P.No.6470/2014 in C.P.No.19/2015 filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Adoor. The petitioner is CW-2 in the final report/charge sheet submitted by the 2nd respondent Sub Inspector of Police, Adoor Police Station, in Crime No. 2202/ 2013 of Adoor Police Station, which is now pending as C.P.No.19/ 2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Adoor. The crime is registered against two persons for offences under Secs.447, 436 read with Sec.34 of the I.P.C. Since one of the offences is under Sec.436 of the I.P.C., which is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the matter is now pending in the aforestated committal proceedings in C.P.No.19/2015. The gist of the prosecution case is that on 4.12.2013 the accused persons criminally trespassed into the car porch of the house of the petitioner's house and set fire her Mahindra Scorpio car bearing registration No.KL-03-Q-484 using petrol and consequently the car was completed damaged. Accordingly, Crime No.2202/2103 of Adoor Police Station was registered on the basis of the statement given by the husband of the petitioner for offences under Secs.447, 346 read with Sec.34 of the I.P.C. After the incident, the investigating officer prepared the mahazar, photographs and inventory of the vehicle and it has been reported to the jurisdictional Magistrate that since the vehicle is totally damaged, it is unable to remove the same from the place of occurrence and as such, damaged vehicle is kept in the car porch of the petitioner. It is pointed out that in the above incident, the some damages were also caused to the house of the petitioner.

2. It is pointed out that since the date of occurrence is on 4.12.2013 onwards, the damaged vehicle is being kept in the car porch of the petitioner and that since the vehicle is kept in the car porch of the petitioner, she is not in a position to renovate her house, which is damaged in the incident or to do maintenance work of the house and moreover, for getting the insurance of the vehicle, there must be an order of disposal of the property from the trial court. It is thus pointed out that the damaged vehicle has been kept continuously in the car porch of the petitioner for more than one and- a-half years. Accordingly, the petitioner had filed Anx. A-4 Crl.M.P.No.6470/2014 in C.P.No.19/2015 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Adoor praying for custody and disposal of the vehicle. The request at Anx.A-4 has been rejected by Anx.A- 5 order, due to the following reasons stated in paragraph 5 thereof, which read as follows:

“5. I have perused the records of the case. The specific case of the prosecution is that accused 1 and 2 on 4.12.13 criminally trespassed into the compound of the defacto complainant and set fire to the Scorpio car of the defacto complainant which was kept in the car porch. The police registered crime no.2202/13 of Adoor Police station against the accused person 1 and 2 alleging commission of offences punishable u/s.447, 436 r/w 34 I.P.C. After completing investigation the police filed final report against accused 1 and 2 u/s 447, 436 r/w.34 I.P.C. Since the final report disclosed offence u/s 436 I.P.C. which is exclusively triable by sessions court proceedings were initiated in C.P.19/15 against the accused persons. Since the car which was set to fire is a crucial material object in the case, which is triable by Sessions Court, it is not proper to entertain the petition at this stage. Therefore I am not inclined to allow the petition.”

3. Heard Sri.K.Shaj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the responde