KNS NAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the Power of Attorney Holder of his wife Sreeja Sasidharan Nair, who is the owner of a vehicle bearing Registration No.KL-01-BV-8599, as is evident from Annexure-B, copy of the certificate of the registration. It is contended that the petitioner and his wife had entrusted the vehicle and the documents pertaining to it to one Vishnu A. Kumar, to find a prospective buyer for the vehicle. The petitioner and his wife were residing abroad and that is the reason why they had entrusted Vishnu A.Kumar to find a buyer for the vehicle. However, without the permission and sanction of the petitioner and his wife, the aforesaid Vishnu A.Kumar, fraudulently created documents, forged signatures and transferred the vehicle to one Jancy Chandy, who is the 2nd respondent herein. Two cheques issued by the accused towards sale consideration were dishonoured.

(2.) On the basis of a complaint that was filed by the petitioner's wife, before the Police as Annexure-C, Crime No.662/2018 was registered at Peroorkada Police Station, against the aforesaid Vishnu Kumar and two others, as Annexure-D. The petitioner would contend that the fraudulent transaction is evident from the fact that Annexure-F, which is Form-30, intimation to the registering authority regarding the transfer of vehicle is forged on 04/01/2018 in favour of the 2 nd respondent. It is pointed out that from Annexure-G, entries made is the passport of the petitioner's wife. It is evident that she was abroad from 07.12.2020 to 06.03.2018. Obviously, she could not have signed Annexure-F, on 04.01.2018. The investigation also has revealed that the signature at Annexure-F is a forged one as revealed from Anneuxre-H, report filed by the Investigating Officer before the Jurisdictional Magistrate. The petitioner filed C.M.P No.4456/2019 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-XI, Thiruvananthapuram to get custody of the vehicle under Section451 Cr.P.C. The 2nd respondent also filed C.M.P No.4597/2019 for custody of the vehicle.

(3.) After having heard both the C.M.Ps', the learned Magistrate vide common impugned order at Annexure-L, found the claim of the 2nd respondent more convincing and handed over possession of the vehicle to her. The petitioner is aggrieved and hence, before this court. It is pertinent to note that the Form-30, intimation given to the registering authority by R2 itself is forged. Under the circumstances, the possibility of the 2 nd respondent also being involved in the crime and being implicated as an accused cannot be ruled out. It is evident that the petitioner's wife has not signed any sale letter either in favour of the 2 nd respondent or in favour of Vishnu, the 1st accused. The car therefore, could not have been sold to the 2 nd respondent and if it is sold by the aforesaid 1 st accused, it is only by deceit, forgery and fraud. The learned Magistrate found fault with the petitioner herein for not producing the original ownership documents which was admittedly handed over to the accused.