K.I. CHERIYAN Vs. MOHANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions are for impleadment under S.482 Cr. P.C. Crl. M.P. 451 of 1993 is in Crl. M.C. 82/93 and Crl. M.P. 446 of 1993 is in Crl. M.C. 83/93. In both the Crl. M.Cs, petitioner is the same, who is the first respondent in the above Crl. M.Ps. The second respondent in the Crl.M.Ps. is the sole respondent in the Crl. M.Cs. An order passed by the Magistrate under S.451 Cr. P.C. with respect to a bus is under challenge in the Crl. M.Cs. After the Crl. M.C.s. were heard and orders reserved, these Crl. M.Ps. were filed seeking impleadment consequent upon which the said Crl. M.Cs. are posted for spoken to.

(2.) Petitioner claims that he is the owner of the bus and one Gopalakrishnan, the registered owner is the hirer. Respondents 1 and 2, according to the petitioner, claim right only under the said Gopalakrishnan. Therefore, the petitioner would maintain that he has got superior right than that of the respondents in the matter of interim custody under S.451 Cr. P.C. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the second respondent is the guarantor of the hire purchase, as can be seen from Annexure R2A. Though the second respondent has filed a counter to these petitions, the said aspect is not denied. In such circumstances, according to the petitioner, he is entitled to he heard in the matter of interim custody of the bus under S.451 Cr. P.C. Therefore, according to the petitioner, he is entitled to be impleaded in the Crl.M.Cs. for which the inherent power of High Court under S.482 Cr. P.C. has to be invoked.

(3.) Learned counsel for the second respondent contended that there is no provision for impleading in a criminal proceeding and on that ground itself, the petitions are liable to be dismissed. It is not disputed that the petitioner has filed a petition under S.451 Cr. P.C. before the lower court and the said petition is now pending. As regards the question of jurisdiction, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent relied on the decision in Assan Haji v. S.I. of Police ( 1977 KLT 76 ) to contend that for invoking S.482 Cr. P.C. it is not enough to show that the impleadment is for the purpose of securing ends of justice. It has further to be shown that it is for giving effect to any order passed under the Code or for preventing abuse of the process of court or for a purpose analogous to them. According to the learned counsel, this application for impleadment cannot fall under any of the categories mentioned under S.482 Cr. P.C.