Manimozhi vs Tharsis

G.M. Akbar Ali, J.—The petition is filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records in S.T.C. No. 781 of 2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Kullithurai and to quash the same.

The petitioner is an Inspector of Police, Nitravillyai Police Station, Kanyakumari District. He registered a case under Sections 363A, 366, 212,

494 I.P.C. in Crime No. 58 of 2008 against one Maria Kegidict and some others and on investigation it was found that the accused persons kidnapped the victim by using the vehicle bearing registration No. KL-01/E-3864. On 21.05.2008 the said vehicle was seized by the petitioner and the same was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Kuzhithurai. The respondent, who is the owner of the vehicle filed an application in Crl.M.P. No. 2039 of 2008 for interim custody of the vehicle and the same was ordered by the learned Judicial Magistrate. When the petitioner was engaged in the regular vehicle check up, the respondent approached the petitioner on 27.06.2008 at 8.30 p.m. For the return the said vehicle as per the order of the Court and the petitioner asked him to wait in the police station and promised the respondent to release vehicle after complying the other formalities. When the petitioner returned to the police station after discharging his duty, the respondent was not

there. The respondent seemed to have complained to the Learned Magistrate, after receiving a notice issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate on 02.07.2008, the petitioner sent a detailed report to the learned Judicial Magistrate regarding the incident, which took place on 27.06.2008.

After considering the report submitted by the respondent, the learned Judicial Magistrate ordered the petitioner to produce the vehicle before the Court on or before 04.07.2008. However, the petitioner sent a report to the learned Judicial Magistrate stating that the said vehicle could not be moved as the tyres were left without air and the condition of the vehicle was not suited for driving. After receiving the report from the petitioner, the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Kulithurai, has initiated contempt proceedings against the petitioner under Sections 188 and 21 I.P.C. and thereafter, the petitioner filed 317 petition through a counsel and the same was adjourned to 24.09.2008 for receiving copy and on 24.09.2008 the petitioner filed a petition u/s 205 to dispense with his appearance in S.T.C. No. 781 of 2008. The learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Kulithurai dismissed the said petition filed by the petitioner and issued non-bailable warrant. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court to quash the entire proceedings in S.T.C. No. 781 of 2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Kuzhiturai on the following grounds:

a) that the trial court has failed to consider that the charges against the petitioner would not attract the provisions of the Sections 188 and 21 of

IPC.

b) that the learned Judicial magistrate has erroneously taken cognizance of the offences.

c) that the learned Judicial Magistrate has failed to comply with the mandatory provisions u/s 340 Cr.P.C.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent is the owner of the said vehicle, which was seized by the petitioner in Crime No. 58 of 2008 and the respondent instead of taking custody of the vehicle had prejudiced the mind of the court as if the petitioner has not complied with the order and unfortunately, the learned Judicial Magistrate had initiated proceedings under Sections 188 and 21 I.P.C. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that the entire proceeding is illegal and has to be quashed.

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent.

The petitioner is an Inspector of Police discharging duty within the jurisdiction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Kuzhithurai. The petitioner has registered a case in Crime No. 58 of 2008 against one Maria Kegidict and Ors. for the alleged offence u/s 363A, 366, 212, 494 I.P.C. and he has also seized the vehicle bearing registration No. KL-01/E-3864. The respondent is the owner of the said vehicle who had obtained an order of interim custody of the vehicle and the vehicle is now in the custody of the petitioner.

The case of the petitioner is that the owner of the vehicle came to the Police Station and asked for the release the vehicle as per the order of the Court and the petitioner requested him to wait for some time as he was engaged in his official duty and the owner of the vehicle left the station and has filed a complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate in order to prejudice him and the learned Judicial Magistrate has initiated proceedings u/s 188 and 21 I.P.C. and issued summons to him.

From the records it is seen that the owner of the vehicle had filed an affidavit before the learned Judicial Magistrate that the Inspector of Police refused to obey the order of the Court and also it is seen that the learned Judicial Magistrate has directed the Inspector of Police to appear before the Court and as he has not appeared.

The learned Judicial Magistrate had issued an order for the production of the vehicle before the Court for which, the Inspector of Police had replied that the vehicle is not in a condition to move and thereafter, the learned Judicial Magistrate has issued summons for his appearance. The Inspector of Police has approached this Court for quashing the entire proceedings in S.T.C. No. 781 of 2008 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Kuzhiturai.

The entire episode would show that there is lack of communication between the Inspector of Police and the learned Judicial Magistrate and it would also reflect that the insubordination of the Inspector and his adamant attitude for refusing to appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate.

Admittedly, the learned Judicial Magistrate has passed an order for return of the vehicle and it is the duty of the Inspector of Police to release the said vehicle on the basis of the order passed. If the petitioner has a valid reason for not returning the vehicle he could have very well explained the position to the learned Judicial Magistrate by appearing before the Court and the petitioner Inspector of Police seems to have taken a stand that he would never appear in person before the learned Judicial Magistrate. On the contrary, the Inspector of Police is always under obliged to approach the learned Judicial Magistrate in order to maintain a healthy relationship and for the dispensation of criminal justice system. The language of the report dated 03.07.2008 would show that the petitioner has acted in an irresponsible manner and disobeyed the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate. It is also evident that the petitioner has taken the matter as a prestige issue and has refused to appear before the Court even to explain his stand.

In view of the same, I have no reason to interfere with the proceedings in S.T.C. No. 781 of 2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate

No. 2, Kuzhiturai. Hence, the petition is dismissed with a direction to the petitioner/Inspector of Police, Nitravillyai Police Station, Kanyakumari District to appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Kuzhiturai within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with his explanation and the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Kuzhithurai is also directed to consider such explanation and decide S.T.C. No. 781 of 2008 accordingly. The Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is also directed to take up this at the crime meeting and solve this

issue. Consequently, connected M.Ps. are closed.