[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Sreepriya Prasannan vs State Of Kerala on 27 March, 2026
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2026:KER:27791
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1948
CRL.MC NO. 8393 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1654/2023 OF Palarivattom Police Station, Ernakulam
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CMP 5481/2023 IN CMP
NO.4731 OF 2023 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - IX,
ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER:
SREEPRIYA PRASANNAN,
AGED 33 YEARS
W/O VIJEESH, MALAYIL AYYATH HOUSE,
ALA,PENNOOKARA POST,CHENGANNOOR,
ALAPUZHA,@ ILLATHUMUGAL, SRA 133,NGO QUARTERS,
VAZHAKKALA, ERNAKULAM DT, PIN - 689520
BY ADVS.
SHRI.FRANKLIN ARACKAL
SMT.SHYLA SHAFFEQ
SRI.M.B.SOORI
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULA, PIN - 682031
2 RAJENDRAN,
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O KRISHNASWAMI, 37/1319C LOTUS VILLA NO.1,
K.MURALI ROAD,KALOOR P O,COCHIN, PIN - 682017
3 BIJU K NAMBOOTHIRI,
S/O KRISHNAN NAMBOOTHIRI,KUNNATHOOR HOUSE,
KUTTAMPEROOR P O,MANNAR,CHENGANNOOR, PIN - 689623
4 AMAL,
AB CARS, USED CAR SHOWROOM ,PADIVATTOM,PALARIVATTOM,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682024
BY ADVS.
SRI.J.KRISHNAKUMAR
SRI.K.NANDAKUMAR
CRL.MC NO.8393 of 2025 2
2026:KER:27791
SHRI.KILLIYOOR P.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR
SEETHA. S, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.03.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO.8393 of 2025 3
2026:KER:27791
Dated this the 27th day of March, 2026
ORDER
The petitioner is the owner of a car bearing
registration No. KL-30-E-4647, which was sold to the
petitioner as per Annexure A1 sale agreement.
Subsequently, the car was seized by the Palarivattom
Police Station in Crime No. 1654/2023 and produced
before the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-IX,
Ernakulam ('Trial Court', for short).
2. Claiming interim custody of the vehicle, the
petitioner filed Annexure A5 application under Section
451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Likewise, the
second respondent, the registered owner of the vehicle,
also filed Annexure A7 application. By Annexure A8
order, the Trial Court has granted interim custody of the
vehicle to the second respondent. The petitioner's
application was closed by Annexure A6 order on the
ground that the vehicle had already been released to the
second respondent. Annexures A6 and A8 orders are
CRL.MC NO.8393 of 2025 4
2026:KER:27791
patently wrong and unsustainable in law. The petitioner
was not afforded an opportunity of being before
Annexure A8 order was passed. There was no
consideration of the petitioner's application as reflected
in Annexure A6 order. Therefore, Annexures A6 and A8
orders may be set aside.
3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the
learned counsel for the second respondent. Even though
service of notice is completed on the respondents 3 and
4, there is no appearance for them.
4. The materials on record reveal that the
petitioner had filed an application on 26.10.2023, that is,
after the passing of Annexure A8 order. It is the
petitioner's specific case that he is the owner of the
vehicle as per Annexure A1 agreement and the sale of
the vehicle is governed by the provisions of the Sale of
Goods Act. Therefore, there is no necessity of having the
registration of the vehicle transferred to the petitioner's
CRL.MC NO.8393 of 2025 5
2026:KER:27791
name in order to claim the ownership. Though the
petitioner filed an application seeking interim custody of
the vehicle, the same was closed by Annexure A6 order
on the ground that the interim custody of the vehicle was
given to the second respondent.
5. Taking into consideration the facts, materials
on record and the rival submissions made across the Bar,
I am of the view that Annexures A6 and A8 orders are
liable to be set aside and the learned Magistrate is to be
directed to reconsider Annexures A5 and A7
applications, in accordance with law and affording all the
parties an opportunity of being heard, so that, the rival
claims of the petitioner and the second respondent are
considered.
6. In the aforesaid circumstances, I am satisfied
that this is a fit case to exercise the inherent powers of
this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Accordingly, I allow Crl.M.C.,
by setting aside Annexures A6 and A8 orders and
CRL.MC NO.8393 of 2025 6
2026:KER:27791
directing the Trial Court to reconsider Annexures A5 and
A7 applications, in accordance with law and as
expeditiously as possible, after affording the petitioner
and the respondents 2 to 4 an opportunity of being
heard. Until such time orders are passed on the above
applications, the interim custody of the vehicle shall be
governed by Annexure 6 order.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
mtk
CRL.MC NO.8393 of 2025 7
2026:KER:27791
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 8393 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE AGREEMENT DATED
11/4/2023 ENTERED IN BETWEEN THE
PETITIONER AND THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RC BOOK OF THE VEHICLE
BEARING NO.KL30E4647 WITH DATE OF
REGISTRATION 12/4/2016
Annexure A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME
NO.1654/2023 DATED 26/7/2023 OF
PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION
Annexure A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME
NO.1861/2023 DATED 13/8/2023 OF
PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION STATION
Annexure A5 A TRUE COPY OF THE CMP 5481/2023 IN CRIME
NO.1654/2023 DATED 26/10/2023 FILED BY
THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST
CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT NO.IX ERNAKULAM
Annexure A6 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED
3/11/2023 IN CMP 5481/2023 IN CRIME
NO.1654/2023 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT NO.IX ERNAKULAM
Annexure A7 A TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM PETITION CMP
4731/2023 DATED 25/9/2023 FILED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT
Annexure A8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13/10/2023
IN CMP 4731/2023 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT NO.IX ERNAKULAM
