The registered owner of a vehicle has the best claim for its interim custody, regardless of any payments made by another party, unless ownership is legally transferred.

ORDER

Dated : 6^th January, 2026 The common petitioner filed these Crl.M.Cs challenging Annexure-A3 common order passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Ernakulam in CMP 2295/2022 and CMP 2609/2022, two rival petitions for interim custody of a vehicle, in crime No.553/2022 of Central police station, Ernakulam.

2. The petitioner is the accused in the above crime and the 3^rd respondent is the de facto complainant therein. The vehicle bearing registration No.KL 07 CW 4860 was seized by the police and for the interim custody of the same, the accused as well as the de facto complainant filed two separate applications. The learned Magistrate allowed the application filed by the de facto complainant and dismissed that of the petitioner herein as per Annexure-

A3 order. Aggrieved by the said order, he preferred these Crl.M.Cs.

3. According to the petitioner, he is the registered owner of the above vehicle and in spite of that, the learned Magistrate released the interim custody of the same to the 3^rd respondent. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Annexure-A3 order passed by the learned Magistrate is unsustainable and therefore, he prayed for quashing Annexure-A3 order and to release the vehicle to the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent strongly opposed the petition and argued that the learned Magistrate has considered the fact that a

2026:KER:300 major portion of the consideration for purchasing the vehicle was spent by her. Therefore, the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent prayed for dismissing these petitions.

5. Admittedly, the petitioner herein is the R.C owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.KL 07 CW 4860. In paragraph 16 of Annexure-A3 order, the learned Magistrate observed that :

“Rival petitions are filed by the defacto complainant as well as the accused in crime No.553/2022 of Ernakulam Central Police Station for the release of vehicle Mahindra Thar motorcar and its key, registration certificate and copy of the insurance certificate in interim custody. On looking into the records and after hearing both side and looking into the report filed by the investigation officer it is very clear that the registered owner of the vehicle is the accused. There is no case for either side that they have entered into an agreement with respect to this vehicle. The very case of the defacto complainant is that she has invested initial amount of Rupees five lakhs and subsequently paid six installments for this vehicle and in such circumstances, the vehicle should be released to the interim custody of the defacto complainant. Another contention raised from the side of the defacto complainant and hence, the vehicle should be released to the interim custody of the defacto complainant.”

6. At the time of the argument, the 3^rd respondent produced bank statements to substantiate the contention that she had made an initial payment of Rs.5,00,000/- and also remitted 6 EMIs for the said vehicle, at the rate of Rs.36,250/-. However, the total purchase price of the vehicle admitted by both

2026:KER:300 sides is around Rs.15,00,000/-. Even in that case it appears that a major portion of the price of the above vehicle was paid by the accused/petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent, even the amount paid by the petitioner was transferred by the 3^rd respondent into the account of the petitioner. Even if it is assumed that the above statements made by the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent are true, at the most what can be presumed at this stage is that the 3^rd respondent advanced money to the petitioner for purchasing the vehicle in his name.

7. Section 2 (30) of