MUHAMMED SHAFI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed by the petitioner, who is the owner of the vehicle seized by the police in Crime No. 96/2014 of Ayiroor Police Station, against the order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Varkala in CMP No. 1336/2014 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner is the owner of an excavator/JCB and it was hired by one Ashok Kumar to remove some obstruction in a road leading to his property situated in Ayiroor village. There has been a long standing dispute between the said Ashok Kumar and office bearers of the Temple committee regarding the disputed road and the Temple committee had constructed a wall across the road leading to the property of the petitioner. There were civil cases pending between the Temple committee and Ashok Kumar and others before the Munsiff Court, Varkala in respect of the disputed pathway. When the said Ashok Kumar has used the excavator belonging to the petitioner to remove the obstruction, on the basis of a statement given by the de facto complainant, the second respondent registered a case as Crime No. 96/2014 of Ayiroor Police Station alleging the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 427 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The excavator was also seized by the police and produced before Court and it was ordered to be kept in the custody of the police and it is now in the Police Station now. The petitioner filed CMP No. 1336/2014 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Varkala for interim custody of the vehicle under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that petition was dismissed by the learned Magistrate by impugned Annexure-B order. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief:

(2.) Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

(3.) The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Magistrate has not in fact rejected the application on the ground that petitioner is not entitled to get interim custody, but only because of the tension prevailing in the locality, the vehicle cannot be released at this stage and that is not the order that ought to have been passed by the Magistrate. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is in possession of the vehicle on the basis of an agreement. So, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Magistrate ought to have granted interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner.