Ajithkumar vs The Commissioner Of Police
2021 Latest Caselaw 12699 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
     WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 12TH JYAISHTA, 1943
                       WP(C) NO. 11680 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

          AJITHKUMAR,
          AGED 31 YEARS,
          S/O. AJAYKUMAR, KAREPARAMBIL (H),
          KOTTAPADY P.O., THRISSUR.

          BY ADVS.
             SRI.I.DINESH MENON
             SRI.L.RAJESH NARAYAN



RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
          THRISSUR CITY, THRISSUR-680003.

    2     THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
          KANDANASSERY, GURUVAYOOR-680101.

    3     THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
          VADAKKEKKAD-679562.

    4     NAZEER KEEDATHAYIL,
          S/O. KAREEM, CHANGELATH HOUSE, PUNNAKKAVU,
          PUNNAYURKULAM P.O., THRISSUR-679561.

    5     BRANCH MANAGER,
          HDFC BANK, THRISSUR-680001.




          R1 to R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.N.B.SUNIL NATH
                R5 BY ADV.SRI.P.SATHEESAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.06.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C).No.11680 of 2021          2




                            JUDGMENT

Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2021

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India. The petitioner is an NRI businessman who purchased a

2017 model motor car bearing Registration No.KL-46 Q1347

having hypothecation with HDFC Thrissur Branch from the 4 th

respondent for a consideration of Rs.2,02,000/-. The true copy of

the transaction receipts are produced alongwith the petition on

hand as Ext.P1. It is submitted by the petitioner that at the time

of purchase of the car, he was told by the 4 th respondent that only

a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- is due to the 5th respondent. But in the

enquiry made it was made known to the petitioner that the sum

actually due to the 5th respondent is Rs.22,00,000/-.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel that petitioner was

a bonafide purchaser and he is agreeable to pay the actual dues

to the 5th respondent. His only grievance was that the vehicle

seized is not produced before the court till date and therefore, it

has become impracticable for him to approach the court and to

apply for getting custody of the vehicle. Accordingly, a direction

is sought to the authorities of the police station concerned who

has seized the vehicle to produce it before the Jurisdictional

Court so as to enable him to apply for its release.

3. Sri.P.Satheesan, the learned Standing Counsel for the

5th respondent has contended that the vehicle has been

hypothecated to the Bank and without the knowledge of the Bank

that it has been transferred to the petitioner by the 4 th

respondent. According to him large amount is due to the Bank

as loan arrears.

4. This Court finds that even if the vehicle is not produced

before the court, the petitioner could move an application under

Section 457 Cr.P.C. before the court for getting the vehicle

released. But as the matter stands, an adjudication to find out

the real claimant is inevitable since the vehicle stands

hypothecated to the 5th respondent by the 4th respondent and it

was transferred in favour of the petitioner during the subsistence

of the loan arrangement. At this juncture, it is submitted by the

learned counsel that the petitioner proposes to move an

application under Section 457 Cr.P.C before the Jurisdictional

Magistrate.

In the result, this Court is inclined to dispose of the Writ

Petition with a direction to the 2 nd respondent not to release

the vehicle to any person approaching the police station with a

claim over it without the matter being adjudicated and decided by

the Jurisdictional Magistrate.

Sd/-

MARY JOSEPH JUDGE MJL

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF TRANSACTION RECEIPTS SHOWING THE PAYMENT MADE TOWARDS 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY 4TH RESPONDENT 30/12/2020.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF FIR NO.264/2021 DATED 29/04/2021.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY DATED 29/04/2021 OF AJITHKUMAR.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 04/05/2021.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 04/05/2021 BEFORE THE SHO VANITHA POLICE STATION.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WPC NO.11292/2021 DATED 19/05/2021.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:     NIL



                                            //TRUE COPY//



                                             P A TO JUDGE