High Court of KeralaSingle JudgePetitions dismissed; interim custody upheld

Sai Service Private Limited v. State of Kerala and Nazar

Case / Petition Number:CRL.MC NO. 2802 OF 2023 (and connected cases)

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Judgment Date
2023-06-01
Court Decision / Holding
These petitions are dismissed. The High Court affirmed the Magistrate’s interim custody orders and declined to interfere, holding that continued custody of the vehicles with the purchasers would not be contrary to law at this stage, especially after noting genuine possession and RC documents, while the underlying criminal acts would require further proof in court.
Final Disposition
Petitions dismissed; interim custody upheld

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Sai Service Private Limited
  • Ashok Kumar

Respondents

  • State of Kerala
  • Nazar
  • Shiyasn B
  • Shameer K.K
  • Kunath House

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • P. Jayabal Menon
  • • Rekha Agarwal

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Molty Majeed
  • • Ieans C. Chamakkala
  • • K. Sujith (Thuravoor)
  • • Aadhal Thankachan

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC challenging the interim custody orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kolencherry, in cases arising from motor vehicle fraud allegations against an authorised signatory of Sai Service Private Limited. The petitioners, Sai Service Private Limited and Ashok Kumar, contend that Febin P. Ibrahim, acting as Team Leader and authorised signatory for the subsidiary True Value (used-car dealer), forged records and sold multiple vehicles (e.g., KL-40-K-9867, KL-39-B-2409, KL-01-BB-0019, KL-63-C-6364, KL-34-B-0168, KL-40-B-9428), causing substantial loss. Following seizures, separate Section 451 CrPC applications for interim custody were filed by the petitioners and purchasers (2nd respondents). The Magistrate held the purchasers to be bona fide for value and in possession, with RC books in their names, and granted interim custody with conditions. The petitioners argued that possession and transfer of RCs occurred in the course of a crime, hence they should not retain custody. The State countered that the purchasers had RC books and possession and that ownership remained with them. The High Court, after reviewing the records, noted the purchasers’ possession and that the crime’s causal factor (Febin’s forgery) would have to be established later in court. Citing Sundarbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, the Court held continued police custody would contravene Supreme Court directions, and dismissed the petitions, upholding the Magistrate’s order.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 451 CrPCSection 482 CrPCSection 406 IPCSection 420 IPCSection 408 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (2022) 10 SCC 283) – direction against prolonged police custody of seized vehicles; used as guiding principle in the present order

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants contended that the Magistrate’s order granting interim custody to the purchasers was untenable since the possession and RC transfers occurred in connection with the alleged crime led by the signatory; they argued that the petitioners’ records and documents (annexures) establish their entitlement to possess the vehicles and that the Court should examine the matter more carefully before continuing the custody. They maintained that since the 2nd petitioner was the de facto complainant and that the sale occurred under forged records, the rightful owners should be restored possession.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents urged upholding the Magisterial order granting interim custody to the purchasers, noting that the RCs and vehicles were with the purchasers and that they bought from the authorised signatory in good faith. They argued that possession and transfer of documents indicated legitimate ownership at that stage and that the order should not be interfered with at the interim stage. They also highlighted that the crime aspects require later evidence in court.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat2022 (10) SCC 283PositiveCited to support the principle that prolonged police custody of seized property should be avoided; the Court references this doctrine to justify not disturbing the existing interim custody in the present matter.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Sai Service Private Limited v. State of Kerala and Nazar and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V THURSDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 11TH JYAISHTA, 1945`** ## **`CRL.MC NO. 2802 OF 2023 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTCMP 201/2023 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,KOLENCHERRY`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` 1SAISERVICEPRIVATELIMITED CHERANELLOREROAD,EDAPALLY,KOCHI-682024, REPRESENTEDBYITSAUTHORISEDSIGNATORY, SRI.ASHOKKUMAR,AGED50YEARS, S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN,VALIYAKATTILHOUSE, - APPAKKADU,OTTAPALAM,PIN678007 2ASHOKKUMAR AGED50YEARS S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN,VALIYAKATTILHOUSE, APPAKKADU,OTTAPALAM,AMBALAPARAVILLAGE, MANNURWESTP.O,PALAKKAD, PURCHASEMANAGERANDAUTHORISEDSIGNATORY, `TRUEVALUE',SAISERVICESPRIVATELIMITED, - PIN678642 BYADVS. P.JAYABALMENON REKHAAGARWAL ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1STATEOFKERALA REPRESENTEDBYTHESUBINSPECTOROFPOLICE, PUTHENCRUZPOLICESTATION, - PUTHENCRUZ,PIN682308 2NAZAR S/O.BEEVI,AGED50YEARS, THEKKUMKATTILVEETIL,NEARCIVILSTATION, - MUVATTUPUZHA,PIN686673 BYADVS. MOLTYMAJEED ``` ``` CRL.MCNO.2802OF2023& Conn.Cases. ``` **==> picture [9 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** ``` C.A.MAJEED(M-36) K.H.ASIF(K/478/2007) P.B.UNNIKRISHNANNAIR(K/445/2012) RUBENGEORGEROCK(K/636/2014) ``` ``` SRIVIPINNARAYANSRPP SRIPRASHANTHMPPP ``` ``` THISCRIMINALMISC.CASEHAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSION ON01.06.2023,ALONGWITHCrl.MC.3101/2023,3169/2023,THE COURTONTHESAMEDAYPASSEDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` ``` CRL.MCNO.2802OF2023& Conn.Cases. ``` ``` 3 ``` ``` INTHEHIGHCOURTOFKERALAATERNAKULAM PRESENT THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICERAJAVIJAYARAGHAVANV THURSDAY,THE1[ST]DAYOFJUNE2023/11THJYAISHTA,1945 ``` ``` CRL.MCNO.3101OF2023 AGAINSTTHEORDER/JUDGMENTCMP269/2023OFJUDICIAL MAGISTRATEOFFIRSTCLASS,KOLENCHERRY CMP169/2023OFJUDICIALMAGISTRATEOFFIRSTCLASS ,KOLENCHERRY ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` 1SAISERVICEPRIVATELIMITED CHERANELLOREROAD,EDAPALLY,KOCHI- REPRESENTEDBYITSAUTHORISEDSIGNATORY, SRI.ASHOKKUMAR,AGED50YEARS, S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN,VALIYAKATTILHOUSE, - APPAKKADU,OTTAPALAM.678007,PIN682024 2ASHOKKUMAR AGED50YEARS S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN,VALIYAKATTIL HOUSE,APPAKKADU,OTTAPALAM,AMBALAPARA VILLAGE,MANNURWESTP.O,PALAKKAD, PURCHASEMANAGERANDAUTHORISEDSIGNATORY, TRUEVALUE,SAISERVICESPRIVATELIMITED,PIN - 678642 BYADVS. P.JAYABALMENON REKHAAGARWAL ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1STATEOFKERALA REPRESENTEDBYTHESUBINSPECTOROFPOLICE, PUTHENCRUZPOLICESTATION, - PUTHENCRUZ,PIN682308 ``` ``` CRL.MCNO.2802OF2023& Conn.Cases. ``` ``` 4 ``` ``` 2SHIYASN.B AGED41YEARS S/O.BASHEER,NEDUVELILHOUSE, MARKETROAD,ERATTUPETTA, - KOTTAYAM,PIN686121 ``` ``` BYADVS. IEANS.C.CHAMAKKALA K.SUJITH(THURAVOOR)(K/133/2016) AADHALTHANKACHAN(K/001107/2022) ``` ``` THISCRIMINALMISC.CASEHAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSION ON01.06.2023,ALONGWITHCrl.MC.2802/2023ANDCONNECTED CASES,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYPASSEDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` ``` CRL.MCNO.2802OF2023& Conn.Cases. ``` ``` 5 ``` ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICERAJAVIJAYARAGHAVANV THURSDAY,THE1[ST]DAYOFJUNE2023/11THJYAISHTA,1945 ``` ``` CRL.MCNO.3169OF2023 AGAINSTTHEORDER/JUDGMENTCMP92/2023OFJUDICIAL MAGISTRATEOFFIRSTCLASS,KOLENCHERRY ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` 1SAISERVICEPRIVATELIMITED CHERANELLOREROAD,EDAPALLY,KOCHI-682024, REPRESENTEDBYITSAUTHORISEDSIGNATORY, SRI.ASHOKKUMAR,AGED50YEARS, S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN,VALIYAKATTILHOUSE, - APPAKKATTU,OTTAPALAM.,PIN678007 2ASHOKKUMAR AGED50YEARS S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN,VALIYAKATTILHOUSE, APPAKKATTU,OTTAPALAM,AMBALAPARAVILLAGE, MANNURWESTP.O,PALAKKAD, PURCHASEMANAGERANDAUTHORISEDSIGNATORY,` TRUEVALUE',SAISERVICESPRIVATELIMITED, - PIN678642 BYADVS. P.JAYABALMENON REKHAAGARWAL ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1STATEOFKERALA REPRESENTEDBYTHESUBINSPECTOROFPOLICE, PUTHENCRUZPOLICESTATION, - PUTHENCRUZ,PIN682308 2SHAMEERK.K S/O.KUNJUKUNJU, ``` ``` CRL.MCNO.2802OF2023& Conn.Cases. ``` ``` 6 ``` ``` KUNATHHOUSE,PULIKKUNNAPPADY, PALLARIMANGALAM, - POTHANOKKADU.,PIN686671 ``` ``` THISCRIMINALMISC.CASEHAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSION ON01.06.2023,ALONGWITHCrl.MC.2802/2023ANDCONNECTED CASES,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYPASSEDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` ``` CRL.MCNO.2802OF2023& Conn.Cases. ``` ``` 7 ``` ## **ORDER** The 1st petitioner herein, M/s. Sai Service Private Limited is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. They contend that they are the authorized sales and service partner for the vehicles manufactured by Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. It is contended that the 1st petitioner has a subsidiary by name “M/s. True Value”, which is set up to be an authorized reseller of used cars. 2. According to the petitioner, a certain Febin P. Ibrahim was the “Team Leader” in charge of “M/s. True Value” showroom at Kolencherry, Piravam, and Koothattukulam. Being the team leader, and the authorized signatory, the aforesaid Febin, was empowered to deal with and sell the cars. 3. While so it came to the notice of the petitioner that with the intention to cause wrongful loss to the petitioners herein and to gain unlawfully, the aforesaid Febin P. Ibrahim forged records and thereafter sold cars bearing registration Nos. KL-40-K-9867, KL-39-B-2409, KL-01-BB-0019, KL-63-C-6364, KL-34-B-0168, and KL-40-B-9428 and thereby caused a loss of Rs.11,35,000/-. Based on the complaint lodged by the 2nd petitioner, a crime was registered interalia under sections 406, ``` CRL.MCNO.2802OF2023& Conn.Cases. ``` ``` 8 ``` 420, and 408 of the IPC. A Tata Indica Car bearing Registration No. KL-01-BB-0019, a Volkswagen Polo car bearing No. KL-63-C-6364 and a Maruti Alto Car bearing No. KL-40-B-9428 were seized by the Police. Records reveal that the aforesaid Febin P. Ibrahim, acting as the authorized signatory of the 1st petitioner herein, had sold the vehicles to the 2nd respondent in these cases, and registration has also been transferred to their name. 4. After the seizure of the cars, separate applications under Section 451 of the Code were filed before the learned Magistrate by the petitioner herein and also the 2nd respondent in all these cases, who had respectively purchased the cars from the authorized signatory. The learned Magistrate before whom the application for interim custody had come up considered the rival contentions and took note of the fact that the second respondent herein in all these cases were bonafide purchasers for value and they were in possession of the vehicle and they being the persons in whose name the R.C. book also stood, proceeded to grant the interim custody of the vehicles to the 2nd respondents by imposing appropriate conditions. ``` CRL.MCNO.2802OF2023& Conn.Cases. ``` ``` 9 ``` 5. The aforesaid order is under challenge in this petition, which is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. Sri. Jayabal Menon, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the order passed by the learned Magistrate cannot be sustained under law. According to the learned counsel, while passing the order, the learned Magistrate failed to take note of the fact that the 2nd petitioner herein was the defacto complainant and also that the allegations in the FIR were that the team leader Febin P. Ibrahim had manipulated records and had sold the vehicles without authority. It is submitted that as the possession of the vehicle and the transfer of the registration certificate was in pursuance to the commission of a crime, the registered owners were not entitled to claim custody of the vehicles. The learned counsel would further point out that the records which are produced as Annexures-3 to 7, which are the purchase agreement in respect of the vehicle, delivery receipts, Form Nos. 29 and 30 would show that the petitioners were entitled to possess the vehicles in terms of the original purchase. However, those documents were also not adverted to by the learned Magistrate. ``` CRL.MCNO.2802OF2023& Conn.Cases. ``` ``` 10 ``` 7. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. It is submitted that the learned Magistrate took note of the fact that the registration certificate of the disputed vehicles was with the second respondent in the respective cases. The 2nd respondent in the respective cases had also placed on record the original of the R.C. Book as well as the Insurance Certificate, and the vehicles were also recovered from their possession. The Magistrate also took note of the fact that the vehicles were sold to them by the authorized signatory. Only the 2nd respondent would be able to operate the vehicle, and in that view of the matter, the order does not warrant any interference. 8. I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the records made available. 9. I find from the records that the 2nd respondent in these cases had purchased these vehicles from the authorized signatory of the 1st petitioner. The registration Certificate has been transferred in their favor, and they were in possession of the vehicle. The learned magistrate also noted that the petitioners were not in possession of any of the original documents to establish that they are entitled to possess and ``` CRL.MCNO.2802OF2023& Conn.Cases. ``` ``` 11 ``` operate the vehicles involved. Though the contention of the petitioners is that the possession of the 2nd respondent was in pursuance to a commission of a crime by the aforesaid Febin P. Ibrahim, the said fact is to be established at a later stage based on materials to be adduced in court. The continued retention of the vehicles in the Police Station would be against the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in **Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat** [2022 (10) SCC 283]. In that view of the matter, I do not think that the order passed by the learned Magistrate warrants any interference. These petitions are dismissed. **Sd/-** **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **JUDGE** ``` avs ``` ``` CRL.MCNO.2802OF2023& Conn.Cases. ``` ``` 12 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3101/2023`** ## **`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`** |`Annexure1`||`TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO. 22 OF 2023 OF`| |---|---|---| |||`PUTHECRUZ POLICE STATION, DATED 05/01/2023`| |`Annexure `|`2`|`TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM PETITION, CRL. M. P NO.169`| |||`OF2013 IN CRIME NO. 22 OF2023 FILED BY THE`| |||`PETITIONERS, DATED 15/02/2023`| |`Annexure `|`3`|`THE TRUE COPY OF SCREEN SHOT OF THE KERALA MOTOR`| |||`VEHICLE DEPARTMENT SITE, DATED NIL .`| |`Annexure `|`4`|`THE TRUE COPY OF THE THE R.C BOOK OF THE CAR KL 63`| |||`C 6364`| |`Annexure `|`5`|`THE TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT DATED`| |||`29/11/2022`| |`Annexure `|`6`|`THE TRUE COPY OF THE DELIVERY RECEIPT DATED`| |||`13/08/2022`| |`Annexure `|`7`|`THE TRUE COPY OF FORM 29 DATED NIL`| |`Annexure `|`8`|`THE TRUE COPY OF FORM 30 DATED NIL`| |`Annexure `|`9`|`THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE RECEIPT DATED 13/08/2022`| |`Annexure `|`10`|`THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER OF THE`| |||`JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLENCHERY`| |||`IN C.M.P NO. 269 OF2023 AND C.M.P NO. 169 OF 2023`| |||`IN CRIME NO. 22 OF 2023 OF PUTHENCRUZ POLICE`| |||`STATION, DATED 21/03/2023`| ``` CRL.MCNO.2802OF2023& Conn.Cases. ``` ``` 13 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3169/2023`** ## **`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`** |`Annexure1`|`TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO. 22 OF 2023 OF`| |---|---| ||`PUTHENCRUZ POLICE STATION, DATED 05/01/2023`| |`Annexure2`|`TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM PETITION, CRL. M. P NO.169`| ||`OF 2013 IN CRIME NO. 22 OF2023 FILED BY THE`| ||`PETITIONERS, DATED 15/02/2023`| |`Annexure3`|`THE TRUE COPY OF SCREEN SHOT OF THE KERALA MOTOR`| ||`VEHICLE DEPARTMENT SITE, DATED NIL`| |`Annexure4`|`THE TRUE COPY OF THE THE R.C BOOK OF THE CAR KL 40`| ||`B 9428`| |`Annexure5`|`THE TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT DATED`| ||`26/09/2022`| |`Annexure6`|`THE TRUE COPY OF THE DELIVERY RECEIPT DATED`| ||`26/09/2022`| |`Annexure7`|`THE TRUE COPY OF FORM 29 DATED NIL`| |`Annexure8`|`THE TRUE COPY OF FORM 30 DATED NIL`| |`Annexure9`|`THE TRUE COPY OF THE DECLARATION DATED 26/09/2022`| |`Annexure10`|`THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER OF THE`| ||`JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLENCHERY`| ||`IN C.M.P NO. 92 OF2023 AND C.M.P NO. 169 OF 2023 IN`| ||`CRIME NO. 22 OF 2023 OF PUTHENCRUZ POLICE STATION,`| ||`DATED 21/03/2023`| ``` CRL.MCNO.2802OF2023& Conn.Cases. ``` ``` 14 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2802/2023`** ## **`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`** |`Annexure `|`1`|`TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO. 22 OF 2023 OF`| |---|---|---| |||`PUTHENCRUZ POLICE STATION, DATED 05/01/2023`| |`Annexure `|`2`|`TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM PETITION, CRL. M. P NO.169`| |||`OF 2023 IN CRIME NO. 22 OF 2023 FILED BY THE`| |||`PETITIONERS, DATED 15/02/2023`| |`Annexure `|`3`|`THE TRUE COPY OF SCREENSHOT OF THE KERALA MOTOR`| |||`VEHICLE DEPARTMENT SITE, DATED NIL`| |`Annexure `|`4`|`THE TRUE COPY OF THE THE R.C BOOK OF THE CAR KL`| |||`01BB 0019 DATED 25.3.2011`| |`Annexure `|`5`|`THE TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT DATED`| |||`29/11/2022`| |`Annexure `|`6`|`TRUE COPY OF THE DELIVERY RECEIPT DATED NIL`| |`Annexure `|`7`|`THE TRUE COPY OF FORM 29 DATED NIL`| |`Annexure `|`8`|`THE TRUE COPY OF FORM 30 DATED NIL`| |`Annexure `|`9`|`TRUE COPY OF THE SALE RECEIPT DATED 25/11/2022`| |`Annexure `|`10`|`CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER OF THE`| |||`JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLENCHERY`| |||`IN C.M.P NO. 201 OF 2023 AND C.M.P NO.169 OF 2023`| |||`IN CRIME NO. 22 OF 2023 OF PUTHENCRUZ POLICE`| |||`STATION, DATED 21/03/2023`|