Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Monish Mohan vs State of Kerala

Monish Mohan vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jun 01, 2023
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1360311

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Crl.MC/3802/2023

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Monish Mohan

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....no. 97/2023, was dismissed. the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that crime no. 97/2023 was originally registered under section 174 of the cr.p.c.2. the allegation against the petitioner herein is that the brotherof the de facto complainant, a certain ajayakumar, was subjected to physical assault by his neighbors. due to the trauma that he suffered, he is alleged to have taken his own life between 6.30 p.m. and 9. p.m on 19.01.2023.3. the learned counsel submits that the application for interimcustody was rejected on the ground that the vehicle was involved in another crime registered by the chadayamangalam police station as crime no. 108/2023, alleging offences punishable under the protection of children from sexual offences act. the learned counsel submits that thesecond crime was registered belatedly in order to give a fillip to the allegations in the earlier crime. the learned counsel would further submit that the vehicle has not been seized in the subsequent crime and, therefore, there is no justification on the part of the learned magistrate to reject the application on that ground. the learned counsel would also refer to the judgment rendered by the apex court in sunderbhai ambalal desai v. state of gujarat [2022 (10) scc 283], and it is submitted that the retention of vehicles in police custody has been deprecated by the hon’ble supreme court.4. heard the learned public prosecutor, who seriously opposed the submissions.5. i have considered the submissions advanced.6. it appears that the aforesaid vehicle was seized in connectionwith crime no. 97/2023 of the chadayamangalam police station. all that is stated in the order rejecting the application is that the vehicle is also involved in another crime on the files of the pocso court. if another crime is also pending and the vehicle is involved therein, the petitioner can very well approach the said court and get orders. the learned magistrate was required to ascertain only whether.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 11TH JYAISHTA, 1945 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTCMP 1185/2023 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KADAKKAL PETITIONER/S: MONISH MOHAN AGED 30 YEARS S/O MOHANAN PILLAI THEKKEDATHU MELETHIL VEEDU, MALAPEROOR MURI, MANAPPARA, KOTTUKKAL VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM., PIN - 691533 BY ADVS. C.R.JAYAKUMAR NOBEL RAJU ABHIRAMI.R RESPONDENT/S: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER CHADAYAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, CHADAYAMANGALAM PO, KOLLAM DISTRICT., PIN - 691534 SRI VIPIN NARAYAN SR PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The petitioner herein has approached this Court seeking to quash the order dated 20.04.2023 in C.M.P. No. 1185/2023 by which the application filed by the petitioner herein for grant of interim custody of a Bajaj Auto Rickshaw bearing Registration No. KL-21M-3415 seized by the Chadayamangalam Police in connection with Crime No. 97/2023, was dismissed. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that Crime No. 97/2023 was originally registered under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C.

2. The allegation against the petitioner herein is that the brother

of the de facto complainant, a certain Ajayakumar, was subjected to physical assault by his neighbors. Due to the trauma that he suffered, he is alleged to have taken his own life between 6.30 p.m. and 9. p.m on 19.01.2023.

3. The learned counsel submits that the application for interim

custody was rejected on the ground that the vehicle was involved in another Crime registered by the Chadayamangalam Police Station as Crime No. 108/2023, alleging offences punishable under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The learned counsel submits that the

second crime was registered belatedly in order to give a fillip to the allegations in the earlier crime. The learned counsel would further submit that the vehicle has not been seized in the subsequent crime and, therefore, there is no justification on the part of the learned Magistrate to reject the application on that ground. The learned counsel would also refer to the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [2022 (10) SCC 283], and it is submitted that the retention of vehicles in Police custody has been deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

4. Heard the learned public prosecutor, who seriously opposed the submissions.

5. I have considered the submissions advanced.

6. It appears that the aforesaid vehicle was seized in connection

with Crime No. 97/2023 of the Chadayamangalam Police Station. All that is stated in the order rejecting the application is that the vehicle is also involved in another crime on the files of the POCSO Court. If another crime is also pending and the vehicle is involved therein, the petitioner can very well approach the said court and get orders. The learned Magistrate was required to ascertain only whether the continued detention of the vehicle

was essential for the purpose of the case pending before the learned Magistrate. It is submitted across the bar that the autorickshaw has not been seized in connection with the second crime. In that view of the matter, this order will stand set aside. The

learned Magistrate shall reconsider the application and release the vehicle by imposing appropriate conditions. It is made clear that if any formal orders have been passed in respect of the vehicle in the case pending before the learned Sessions Judge, the petitioner shall approach the said Court and seek appropriate orders.

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE avs APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3802/2023 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE RC PARTICULARS OF AUTORICKSHAW BEARING REGN NO. KL-21-M-3415 Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO. 97/2023 OF CHADAYAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DATED 20.01.2023. Annexure A3 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP NO. 1185/2023 DATED 20/04/2023 ON THE FILES OF TEMPORARY JUDICIAL 1ST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KADAKKAL.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial