2025:KER:29033 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 13202 OF 2025 PETITIONER: SATHEESH P.K AGED 33 YEARS S/O KUMARAN P.K, POOVATHINAL VEEDU, THENUR, PALAKKAD., PIN – 678612 BY ADV P.M.UNNI NAMBOODIRI RESPONDENTS: 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE COMMISSIONER OFFICE, SHANMUGHAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 682031 2 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 682030 3 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DSITRICT., PIN - 682001 4 ROOPESH O. B AGED 47 YEARS S/O N. BHASURAN, NIRMALYAM, PILAPUZHA, HARIPAD . P.O., ALAPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690514 OTHER PRESENT: GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SRI B S SYAMANTHAK THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:29033 WP(C)No.13202 of 2025 2 Dated this the 4th day of April, 2025 JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed, inter alia, to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to take custody of the vehicle which has been stolen by the fourth respondent. 2. The petitioner had purchased the vehicle bearing registration No. KL-29-K-0009 from the fourth respondent. As per Ext.P1 Registration Certificate, the fourth respondent had transferred the ownership of the vehicle to the petitioner’s name. However, the fourth respondent has stolen the vehicle from the petitioner’s custody. Even though the petitioner submitted Exts. P2 to P4 complaints before the respondents 3, 1 and 2, respectively, no action has been taken in the matter. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Heard; the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 2025:KER:29033 WP(C)No.13202 of 2025 3 4. The learned Government Pleader submitted that there are certain monetary disputes between the petitioner and the fourth respondent. It is learnt that the fourth respondent has repossessed the vehicle as per the conditions of an agreement. As the dispute is civil in nature, the respondents have not registered a crime. 5. On a consideration of the facts and the materials on record, I am of the definite view that, if the petitioner has a case that the fourth respondent has stolen his vehicle and the respondents 1 to 3 are not taking any action on the complaints submitted by him, following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others [(2008) 2 SCC 409], it would be up to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional magistrate and work out his remedies in accordance with the law. With the above observations,the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- mtk/04.04.25 C.S.DIAS, JUDGE 2025:KER:29033 WP(C)No.13202 of 2025 4 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13202/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF KL-29-K-0009 2014 MODEL LAND ROVER CAR DATED 11/02/2020. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 10/09/2024. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 11/11/2024. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 11/11/2024.