ASWATHI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the above Criminal Miscellaneous case filed under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C is as follows :

(2.) Heard Sri.Lal K.Joseph, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.B.Jayasurya, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

(3.) The abovesaid petition arises out of Annexure-A2 FIR in Crime No.173/2019 of Kuthiyathodu Police Station, Alappuzha District which has been registered for offences punishable under Secs.406, 420 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ). The accused in this case are the Directors/Proprietors of TNT Chits Private Limited, who were conducting the chit business in the building owned by the mother of the petitioner, on license basis. Later, the mother of the petitioner has died on 20.11.2018. In the course of the investigation, the Investigating Officer had seized the files, computer records and many other materials with proper mahazar and panchanama, which were found in the said office of the abovesaid chit company and had locked the said premises and kept the key under their custody. The main accused Sri.Biju is said to be absconding. The license agreement entered into by the petitioner's deceased mother with Sri.Biju stood terminated, as the licensor (petitioner's mother had died) and the building thus came to the ownership and possession of the petitioner at the time of the seizure. In the instant case, instead of handing over the key of the building to the petitioner as the legal representative of the deceased licensor, the police had sealed the entire premises and had taken away the key. Hence, the petitioner was constrained to file a claim petition as Crl.Miscellaneous Petition No.4990/2019 in Crime No.173/2019 of Kuthiyathodu Police Station before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Cherthala seeking for directions to the Investigating Officer to hand over the key of the building to the petitioner. The learned Magistrate has passed Annexure-A4 order dated 31.05.2019 in Crl.M.P.No.4990/2019. The Investigating Officer as a counter petition therein opposed the plea of the petitioner on the ground that if the key of the building is handed over to the petitioner, then there is every chance that the building will be altered and demolished by the petitioner. The learned Magistrate found that the counter petitioner/Investigating Officer has no case that the petitioner herein is not the owner of the building. The only objection raised therein is that the petitioner may demolish or alter the building, if the key of the building is handed over to the petitioner. The petitioner had taken the stand that he does not intend to demolish the building or to alter the same and that he wants the building in order to put the said building property for economic use. The learned Magistrate has now passed the abovesaid Annexure-A4 order directing the Investigating Officer to hand over the key of the building subject to the condition that the petitioner shall produce the key as and when directed by the court or by the Investigating Officer and shall not demolish or alter the building until the disposal of the trial, etc. These are the contentions at Annexure-A4 that is under challenge in the above petition.