Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 50492
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
V. G. Arun, J
SUDHAKAR .T – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 5693 OF 2025 | CRL.MC NO. 5426 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.BONNY BENNY, SHRI.AMALJITH
For the Respondents: SRI.ABDUL JAWAD K, SRI.ABDUL MAJEED.N, SMT.A.GRANCY JOSE, SMT.AYSHA A.A.
Registered ownership is determinative in interim custody disputes unless compelling evidence of transfer is presented.
Headnote:(A) Sections 314, 318 and 335 of BNS - Interim custody of a vehicle seized in relation to a criminal case - Petitioner claimed ownership based on an agreement, but the vehicle remained registered in the respondent's name - Legal ownership as reflected by the Regional Transport Office was determinative in interim order for custody - Claim of theft and agreement for sale disputed in proceedings. (Paras 2, 4, 5, 6)
(B) Question of interim custody - Magistrate within jurisdiction to decide custody based on legal ownership despite claims of sales agreement, reinforcing principle that registration reflects ownership unless proof to contrary is provided. (Paras 3, 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought the return of a vehicle claimed to be sold to him but registered in another's name; police seized the vehicle subject to allegations of theft.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the Magistrate's decision, reinforcing that ownership rests with the registered owner unless invalidated by substantial evidence of transfer or agreement.
Issues: Determination of rightful custody based on registered ownership versus claimed sale agreement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court establishes that registered ownership is conclusive for interim custody unless compelling evidence indicates otherwise.
Result: Crl.M.Cs are dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. interim custody application based on vehicle ownership. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding the legal basis for custody. (Para 3) |
| 3. court's observations affirming registered ownership. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
ORDER
The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure A2 order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Parappanangadi granting interim custody of the Toyota Fortuner Car bearing Registration No.KL 07 CK 7313 to the 2nd respondent. The essential facts are as under;
Crime No.1111 of 2024 was registered at the Thenhipalam Police Station for offences under Sections 314 , 318 and 335 of the BNS on the allegation that the accused, after convincing the power of attorney holder of the 2nd respondent, borrowed the car for his own use and sold it to a third person. During investigation of that crime, the car was seized from the workshop of the petitioner and produced in court.
2. The petitioner thereafter filed an application (CMP No.939 of 2025) seeking interim custody of the vehicle, contending that the 2nd respondent, the registered owner, had sold the car to him for Rs.12 lakhs. While handing over the vehicle, the 2nd respondent promised to transfer the registration to the petitioner's name after closing the loan on the vehicle. A few days later, police came to the petitioner's workshop in Sulur, Coimbatore and took away the vehicle on the premise that a crime had been registered on the allegation that the vehicle had been stolen from the 2nd respondent's possession.
3. The 2nd respondent also filed an application (CMP No.915 of 2025) through his power of attorney holder alleging that the vehicle was clandestinely taken away by his acquaintance named Jamsheer (accused) and sold to the petitioner. The learned Magistrate heard both petitions and passed the impugned common order, granting interim custody to the 2nd respondent, he being the registered owner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of the agreement entered between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent and the entire value of the vehicle having been paid, the Magistrate committed gross illegality in granting interim custody to the 2nd respondent, solely on the ground that his name is still shown as the owner in the registration certificate. While deciding the claim petition, the Magistrate omitted to consider the crucial fact that the vehicle was seized from the petitioner's workshop.
5. According to the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, apart from the claim of having entered into an agreement for purchasing the vehicle, no proof regarding transfer of possession or payment is produced by the petitioner. Further, seizure of the vehicle from the petitioner's workshop in a dismantled condition itself is sufficient indication of the accused having purchased the stolen vehicle with the intention of selling it after changing its colour as well as the engine and chassis numbers. It is submitted that the petitioner has filed a civil suit before the Sub Court, Tirur, seeking specific performance of the agreement for sale. Therein, the civil court has passed an interim order of attachment with a direction to hand over the car to the 2nd respondent on furnishing security for Rs.12 lakhs.
6. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Regional Transport Officer, Kozhikode viz; the registration authority of the car, had reported that the R.C owner of the vehicle is the 2nd respondent and no application for transfer of ownership or getting NOC was received at the office of the RTO. It is therefore beyond dispute that the 2nd respondent is the registered owner of the car, even though the petitioner claims that the vehicle was transferred to him for consideration. Being so, the Magistrate was justified in granting interim custody to the 2nd respondent since genuineness or otherwise of the alleged agreement cannot be decided in a proceeding under Section 497 of BNSS. Another important aspect is that, the petitioner's position is secured by the civil
