Shawali Ullakhan vs State

C.T. Selvam, J.—These revisions arise against orders of learned Judicial Magistrate I, Erode, passed in Crl. M.P. Nos. 34 and 223 of 2014 on 14.02.2014.

Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned counsel for respondents and learned Government Advocate (Crl.side).

These two revisions are preferred by rival claimants to a vehicle viz., Scorpio Car bearing registration No. TN-33-AH-0900, which according to the prosecution was used in the commission of offence registered in Crime No. 647 of 2013 on the file of Sub-Inspector of Police, Karungalpalyam Police Station, Erode. The case was registered for offence u/s. 387 IPC. While the claim of the petitioner in Crl.R.C. No. 1036 of 2014 is that she is the legal heir of the registered owner of the vehicle, that of the petitioner in Crl.R.C. No. 300 of 2014 is that he has become duly entitled pursuant to purchase thereof. The registered owner of the vehicle expired on 20.04.2013. It is admitted case that the vehicle was registered in the name of the petitioner in Crl.R.C. No. 300 of 2014 only in May 2013. It is the submission of learned counsel for such petitioner that the vehicle stood duly delivered to him by the registered owner upon payment of consideration. However, as a small sum was payable to the broker, such person had withheld the transfer form. Only upon payment to such broker and without the knowledge of the death of the registered owner, the vehicle subsequently was registered in the name of the petitioner in Crl.R.C. No. 300 of 2014. In the aforesaid circumstances, the right of the petitioner in Crl.R.C. No. 300 of 2014 would have to be worked out before a civil forum.

The petitioner in Crl.R.C. No. 1036 of 2014 claims that she is the legal heir of the registered owner. In the circumstances, it would but be appropriate to direct interim custody of the vehicle to such petitioner. This Court, for now, directs return of vehicle viz., Scorpio Car bearing registration No. TN-33-AH-0900 to the petitioner in Crl.R.C. No. 1036 of 2014 subject to the following conditions:

(i) the Court below shall cause photographs of the vehicle and then, return the same to the petitioner;

(ii) the petitioner shall not alienate or alter the vehicle in any manner.

(iii) the petitioner shall undertake to produce the vehicle as and when required by the Court below.

In the result,

(i) Crl.R.C. No. 300 of 2014 is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to work out his remedy against petitioner in Crl.R.C. No. 1036 of 2014.

(ii) Crl.R.C. No. 1036 of 2014 is allowed. The order of learned Judicial Magistrate I, Erode, passed in Crl.M.P. No. 223 of 2014 on 14.02.2014, is set aside.