Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
B.KEMAL PASHA, J
BENNY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC/6689/2015
Seizure - Vehicle Release - Cr.P.C Section 451 - The court addressed the improper dismissal of a petition for vehicle release despite the registered owner's affirmation of sale to the petitioner, focusing on justice and due process in handling civil nature cases.
Fact of the Case:
The vehicle was seized during an investigation, and the petitioner sought its release. The court below dismissed the petition, stating the registered owner was different, despite the owner affirming the sale to the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the dismissal of the petition was unjust and resulted in a miscarriage of justice, particularly since the registered owner confirmed that the vehicle had been sold to the petitioner.
Issues: Whether the vehicle should be released to the petitioner despite the registered owner's claim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of considering the registered owner's affirmation of sale, which outweighed the initial basis for the vehicle seizure.
Final Decision: The order dismissing the petition is quashed; the vehicle is to be released to the petitioner under specified conditions.
O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.
2. The vehicle bearing Regn. No.KL-23-B-6146 was seized from the possession of the petitioner in connection with the investigation of Crime No.747/2015 of the Kodanadu Police Station. Subsequently, the Police referred the matter, on the ground that it is of a civil nature. The petitioner has preferred C.M.P.No.269/2015 before the court below, seeking the release of the vehicle, under Section 451 Cr.P.C. The court below has declined the request and dismissed the petition through Annexure-A11 order, on the ground that, the records reveal that one Sivan is the registered owner of the vehicle.
3. It is pertinent to note that the said Sivan, who is the RC owner of the vehicle, had approached the court below through Annexure-A8 affidavit and had unequivocally affirmed that the vehicle was sold by him to the petitioner, and the vehicle could be released to the petitioner.
4. There is no reason for the court below to dismiss CMP No.269/2015. Annexure-A11 order has no doubt, resulted in substantial miscarriage of justice and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed.
In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed and Annexure-
A11 order stands quashed. CMP No.269/2015 of the court below stands allowed. The vehicle shall be released to the petitioner on the following terms and conditions:
i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for ₹4 lakhs (Rupess Four lakhs only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the court below.
(ii) The petitioner shall not encumber or alienate the vehicle without the permission of the court below.
(iii) The petitioner shall not make use of the vehicle for any illegal purpose.
(iv) The petitioner shall produce the vehicle before court or any authority as and when required in this matter.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
