RENJITH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed in Crl.M.P. No. 2261/13 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Perumbavoor, confirmed in Crl.R.P. No. 107/2013 of Sessions Court, Ernakulam under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (herein after called the Code).

(2.) It is alleged in the petition that, petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle KL-46-B-4500 Swift car which was seized by the Thadiyittaparambu police station in connection with the crime No. 217/2012 of that police station, which was registered on the basis of the complaint given by the fourth respondent, alleging offence under section 394 of Indian Penal Code. The petitioner filed Crl.M.P. No. 1033/2013 for interim custody of the vehicle, and financier filed Crl.M.P. No. 1841/2013, and the de facto complainant filed Crl.M.P. No. 2071/2013, for the same purpose and all these petitions were disposed of, by the learned Magistrate by a common order dated 06.09.2013, and allowed the application filed by the financier and interim custody was granted to them and dismissed the applications filed by the de facto complainant, and also the petitioner. The financier did not comply with the condition. So the petitioner filed Crl.M.P. No. 2261/2013, for recalling that order and grant interim custody of the vehicle and the learned Magistrate by Annexure-A order, dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Crl.R.P. No. 107/2013, and the learned Sessions Judge also dismissed the revision in view of the bar under section 397(2) r/w section 362 of Code of Criminal Procedure as the Criminal Court has no power to recall or review the order and the impugned order is an interlocutory order. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner.

(3.) While the petition was pending before this Court, the matter has been settled between the parties, and the financier as well as the de facto complainant appeared through counsel and submitted that they have no objection in giving interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner and financier also submitted that entire dues of the vehicle has been paid to them, and they have no claim over the vehicle any longer. Since, the earlier order passed by the learned Magistrate was not challenged by the petitioner, the petitioner filed Crl.M.A. No. 7176/2014 for amendment of the prayer challenging that order as well and also produced the earlier impugned common order passed by the learned Magistrate in this regard giving interim custody of the vehicle to the financier and that was allowed.