The court held that interim custody of a vehicle cannot be unsettled without resolving ownership disputes, pending further investigation.

COMMON ORDER

As these Criminal Miscellaneous Cases are filed challenging the common order passed by the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kalamassery (‘Trial Court’, for brevity), dismissing the application filed by the petitioner and allowing the application filed by the counter petitioner, they are consolidated, jointly heard, and being disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitioner claims to be the registered owner of a car bearing registration No. KL-01-CF-9798, which is involved in Crime No. 179/2020, registered by the Kalamassery Police Station, Ernakulam District, alleging the commission of the offences under Sections 323 and

392 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code .

3. Claiming the interim custody of the vehicle, the petitioner – registered owner – filed CMP.No.805/2020 and the third respondent filed CMP. No. 814/2020.

4. The crux of the prosecution allegation, which led to the registration of the crime, is that the defacto complainant (third respondent in the Crl.M.C) had purchased the car for Rs. 44,00,000/-. The accused persons had approached the defacto complainant to purchase the car. Then they took the car for a trial run, and made the defacto complainant believe that they would transfer the sale consideration through bank transfer. However, the accused persons took away the car under threat and coercion, and by inflicting injuries on the defacto complainant.

5. The third respondent’s case is that, on 02.07.2018, the registered owner had transferred the vehicle to the second respondent, who in turn, on 02.07.2018, had sold the same to the third respondent.

6. By Annexure-II in Crl.M.C. No. 343/2024 and Annexure A8 order in Crl.M.C. No. 2635/2020, the Trial Court, considering the contention raised by the third respondent that the vehicle was sold to him by the second respondent on the basis of an agreement for sale, after receiving the consideration, and taking note of the law laid down by this Court in Prakasan V v. K.P. Pankajakshan and Another ( 1985 KHC 977 ), dismissed the application filed by the petitioner and allowed the application filed by the third respondent.

7. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the respective learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3.

7. Crime No. 179/2020 was registered at the instance of the third respondent alleging that the vehicle was stolen from him by the accused persons. On the other hand, the petitioner claims ownership of the vehicle on the ground that he is the registered owner. 8. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that, although the crime was registered in the year 2020, the investigation in the case is not complete, as the forensic science laboratory report is not received with respect to the genuineness of the agreement for sale, which is the crucial document to decide the case. It is relying on the said document that the Trial Court has granted the interim custody of the vehicle to the third respondent.

9. Taking into consideration the scope and purport of Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.', for brevity), 1973, which mandates that the Trial Court has to consider an application within 14 days from the date of the filing of the application, and the fact that the third respondent relies on the document which is purportedly executed by the petitioner, selling the vehicle to the second respondent after receiving the consideration, I am of the definite view it is premature for this Court to conclude that the agreement for sale is a fabricated document. The said disputed question can only be decided after the trial is concluded.

10. Considering the fact that t