AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V. Ramkumar, J.—The petitioner in Crl. M.C. No. 1726 of 2010 is one Sreejith who is the son of K. Sarojini, the petitioner in Crl. M.C. No. 1727 of 2010. Besides Sreejith, Sarojini has a son by name Vinod Kumar who is the common Ist respondent in these Crl.M.Cs.
Sreejith lodged a complaint before the Meppadi Police alleging that Vinod Kumar fraudulently transferred the registration of an Enfield Motor Cycle bearing Registration No. KL-12/6501 and a Jeep bearing Reg. No. KL-11/8086 which were originally standing in the name of Sreejith and his mother Sarojini respectively and Vinod Kumar had committed an offence punishable u/s 420 I.P.C.
During crime stage Sreejith filed C.M.P. 323 of 2010, Sarojini filed C.M.P. 324 of 2010 and Vinod Kumar filed C.M.P. No. 1009/2010 and 1010 of 2010 for interim custody of the motor cycle and jeep in question. Except the Registration Certificate which showed that the registration of the Jeep as well as the motor cycle of which the registered owners were Sarojini and Sreejith respectively was transferred in the name of Vinod Kumar, no other documents were produced before the Magistrate. The sale letters on the basis of which the registration was transferred were not summoned from the custody of the Registering Authority. Hence, going by the transfer effected in the registration certificate and going further by the fact that both the vehicles were seized by the police from the possession of Vinod Kumar, the learned Magistrate as per the impugned common order dated 4-5-2010 upheld the claim of Vinod Kumar and rejected the petitions filed by Sreejith and Sarojini. Hence, these Crl.M.Cs filed by Sreejith and Sarojini.
The learned Magistrate cannot be found fault with in prima facie taking the registration certificate as evidence of title coupled with the fact that both the vehicle were seized from the custody of Vinod Kumar. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that pursuant to the impugned common order, the vehicles have been released to Vinod Kumar. I, therefore, do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned common order. However, if the petitioners are able to get the sale documents summoned from the custody of the Registering Authority and if they are able to show that their signatures have been forged, the impugned common order will not preclude them from filing fresh applications for interim custody.
With the above observation, these Crl.M.Cs are disposed of. It will be open to the petitioners to apply to the court below to summon the sale letters in the custody of the Registering Authority, if so advised.
Dated this the 20th day of May, 2010.