KUMARA BANU Vs. MUTHOOT FINANCE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the order dated 20.03.2013 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, in Crl.R.P.No.63/2011.

(2.) Petitioner lodged a complaint before Surathkal Police Station against one Mayyadi and his wife Jubeda for the offences punishable under Sections 407 and 420 of IPC which came to be registered in Crime No.41/2011. It is alleged in the complaint that the accused persons known to her. They requested her to give her gold ornaments for the purpose of their business. They promised to give commission to the petitioner out of the profits earned by them in their business. They also told the petitioner that they would return the gold ornaments within one month. Believing the words of accused, the petitioner parted with her gold ornaments to the accused. The accused failed to return the gold ornaments even after one month. On the other hand, they left the village without informing the petitioner. Petitioner lodged a complaint and thereby aforesaid crime came to be registered.

(3.) During the course of investigation, the police arrested the accused and based on their voluntary statement, recovered gold ornaments from the possession of respondent No.2-Muthoot Finance Limited Branch at Kavur in Mangalore. The seizure was reported to the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Mangalore. The petitioner filed an application under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. for the interim custody of the gold ornaments seized. So also, the respondent Nos.1 and 2-Muthoot Finance Limited filed an application under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. for interim custody. Both the applications were heard by the Chief Judicial Magistrate who inturn allowed the application filed by the petitioner while rejecting the application filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2. The Magistrate ordered to handover the gold ornaments to the custody of the petitioner on the ground that it is at the instance of the complaint filed by the petitioner, the gold ornaments were recovered. Aggrieved by the order of rejection of the application filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 by order dated 30.04.2011, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 preferred Criminal Revision Petition before the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mangalore. The learned Sessions Judge upon hearing the parties, partly allowed the revision petition and ordered to keep the ornaments in safe custody till the conclusion of the trial by order dated 20.03.2013.