Sreejith vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Mar 18, 2020

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1752364

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1752364
Court: Kerala Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mrs. Justice Mary Joseph
Decided On: Mar 18, 2020
Case Number: Crl.MC/1125/2014

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sreejith

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....in the general diary of thenew mahe police station on the date and time itself. it is reported that the car is under the safe custody of the station guard of new mahe police station, the 1st respondent. it is further reported that the vehicle is not involved in any crime registered at new mahe police station and the latter has no role other than rendering assistance to navapur police authority on their request to keep the same in custody.crl.mc.no.1125 of 2014 44. it is revealed from the report that the vehicle hasbeen seized in crime no.49 of 2013 registered at navapur police station, maharashtra for offences punishable under sections 395, 364, 342 indian penal code read with sections 3and 25 of arms act. the vehicle was seized by the navapur police and on the request of them, the same was kept in the custody of the 1st respondent. since, the crime is registered by the navapur police of maharashtra and the vehicle has been seized by them, only for the reason that it was kept in custody by the new mahe police, this court will not gain jurisdiction to entertain the matter on hand. the direction as sought by the petitioner is not liable to be issued to the 1 st respondent in the above circumstances. therefore, the crl.m.c is only liable to be dismissed.in the result, the crl.m.c is dismissed. sd/- mary joseph judge nab crl.mc.no.1125 of 2014 5 appendix petitioner's/s exhibits: annexure-i: true copy of registration certificate of the car bearing registration number kl-58-c-6180 respondent's/s exhibits: nil //true copy// p a to judge

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1941 Crl.MC.No.1125 OF 2014 IN CRIME NO.49/2013 OF NAVAPUR POLICE STATION, STATE OF MAHARASHTRA PETITIONER: SREEJITH, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN,AGED 38 YEARS, SREE SHAKTHI, MOZHIKKARA POST, THALASSERY VIA, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 103. BY ADV. SRI.S.M.ALTHAF RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEW MAHE POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2 ASSISTANT INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NAVAPUR POLICE STATION, NANDURBAR DISTRICT, MAHARASHTRA STATE. R1 BY ADV. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

R1 BY SRI.B.JAYASURYA, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No.1125 OF 2014 2

ORDER

Dated this the 18th day of March, 2020 The petition on hand is filed by one Mr.Sreejith under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking for a direction to the 1st respondent to release a Santro Car bearing Registration Number KL-58-C-6180 (2009 Model) belonging to him.

2. His case was that on 05.01.2014, the car belonging

to him was seized by the 1st respondent from his house, when himself and his family members had gone to Parassinikkadavu temple. When they returned at night, he found his car was missing. On enquiry made by him, he came to know that the

1st respondent had taken away his car. He contacted the 1 st respondent and was told that the car was seized in connection with Crime No.49 of 2013 registered at Navapur Police Station, Nandurbar District, State of Maharashtra. Alleging that the 1 st respondent failed to produce the car or report about its seizure before any competent court and that the car belonging to him is not involved in any crime, the petitioner has approached this

Crl.MC.No.1125 OF 2014 3 Court seeking for issuance of a direction to the 1 st respondent to release the same.

3. In the case on hand, a report is called for from the

1st respondent. The learned Public Prosecutor has obtained a report from the 1st respondent and filed the same for perusal. It is reported that a Santro Car bearing Registration No.KL-58- C-6180 got seized by Navapur Police, Maharashtra in Crime No.49/2013 registered by them and after completion of the procedures of seizure, the car was handed over to the Station House Officer, New Mahe Police Station by the Assistant Inspector, Navapur Police Station for keeping the same in safe custody for want of proper and sufficient facilities for keeping the

same there. The matter was entered in the General Diary of the

New Mahe Police Station on the date and time itself. It is reported that the car is under the safe custody of the Station Guard of New Mahe Police Station, the 1st respondent. It is further reported that the vehicle is not involved in any crime registered at New Mahe Police Station and the latter has no role other than rendering assistance to Navapur Police Authority on their request to keep the same in custody.

Crl.MC.No.1125 OF 2014 4

4. It is revealed from the report that the vehicle has

been seized in Crime No.49 of 2013 registered at Navapur Police Station, Maharashtra for offences punishable under Sections 395, 364, 342 Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3

and 25 of Arms Act. The vehicle was seized by the Navapur Police and on the request of them, the same was kept in the custody of the 1st respondent. Since, the crime is registered by the Navapur Police of Maharashtra and the vehicle has been seized by them, only for the reason that it was kept in custody by the New Mahe Police, this Court will not gain jurisdiction to entertain the matter on hand. The direction as sought by the petitioner is not liable to be issued to the 1 st respondent in the above circumstances. Therefore, the Crl.M.C is only liable to be dismissed.

In the result, the Crl.M.C is dismissed. Sd/- MARY JOSEPH JUDGE NAB Crl.MC.No.1125 OF 2014 5 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE-I: TRUE COPY OF REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE CAR BEARING REGISTRATION NUMBER KL-58-C-6180 RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P A TO JUDGE

Same Court & Year Kerala Orders · 2020 Same Parties Sreejith vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mrs. Justice Mary Joseph