SREERAG FINANCE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims to be a financier in respect of a vehicle. The second respondent herein is admittedly the registered owner of the vehicle. The second respondent complained to the police that a theft had taken place of the said vehicle. The police, in the course of the investigation, seized the vehicle. The second respondent applied for release of the vehicle under Section 451 Cr.P.C. His was the earlier application for release. Subsequently, the petitioner herein filed an application under Section 451 Cr.P.C for release of the vehicle to him. To a pointed query of this court, it is conceded that the petitioner has no case that the vehicle was seized from his possession by the police. However, he claims right to re- possess the vehicle in as much as there has been default in payment of instalment by the second respondent. Both petitions were simultaneously pending before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate, without taking note of the pendency of the application filed by the petitioner, took up the petition filed by the second respondent for consideration and by Annexure A order directed the release of the vehicle to the second respondent herein.

(2.) Later, it was brought to the notice of the learned Magistrate that the petition filed by the petitioner herein remains without disposal. When that petition came up for hearing, the learned Magistrate proceeded to pass Annexure B order. In as much as Annexure A order could not be reviewed by the learned Magistrate, sitting as a criminal court, the learned Magistrate proceeded to pass Annexure B order dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner.

(3.) The short grievance of the petitioner is that for an error committed by the court, he may not be forced to endure prejudice. Both petitions must have been disposed of together as the identical relief - release of the vehicle to the respective claimants under Section 451 Cr.P.C, was prayed.