PATHU HAIJUMMA Vs. K M ANDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions are filed by the common petitioner against a common order under which a petition filed by her for release of a vehicle to her was dismissed and the petition filed by the 1st respondent for release of the vehicle to him was allowed subject to conditions.

(2.) This case has a chequered career by now. It would be profitable to attempt a synoptic resume of the events which had led to these petitions now. Stage carriage No. KL 11C 9549 is a bus which stood registered in the name of one Ammad Haji - the husband of the petitioner. The 2nd respondent in Crl.M.C.No.166/07 is the son of the said Ammad Haji and the petitioner herein. The said Ammad Haji allegedly filed a complaint before the police on 18/9/95. No action was taken allegedly by the police and thereupon the said Ammad Haji filed a complaint dated 12/12/95 before the learned Magistrate. The said complaint was referred to the police under Sec.156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and a crime was registered as Crime No.92/96 of Vadakara Police Station. The vehicle involved (I shall hereinafter refer it as `the bus') was seized by the police on 14/2/96.

(3.) The said Ammad Haji had filed that complaint against three individuals. The 1st accused was one Illikkal Joseph. The 2nd accused was Moosa - son of Ammad Haji, and the 3rd accused was one Raja Kurup - a Manager of Moosa. The crux of the allegations raised in the said complaint is that the three accused persons, in furtherance of their common design to defraud the said Ammad Haji, had taken away the bus and had created documents to make it appear that the bus had been sold to the said Illikkal Joseph. A copy of that agreement is produced as Ext-A7 before the court below.