LAWS(KAR)-2011-12-278

RAGHAVENDRA S/O. G. RAMAKRISHNAIAH AND SHYAM S/O. SIDDAPPAJI Vs. THE STATE BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE NANJANAGOOD RURAL POLICE STATION MYSORE DIST. REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE AND K.S. MARI S/O. KALASI

Decided On December 05, 2011
Raghavendra S/O. G. Ramakrishnaiah And Shyam S/O. Siddappaji Appellant
V/S
State By The Sub Inspector Of Police Nanjanagood Rural Police Station Mysore Dist. Rep. By The State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bangalore And K.S. Mari S/O. Kalasi Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions are filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.266/2011 of Nanjangud Rural Police Station, registered on 11.08.2011 for the offences under Sections 363 and 392 IPC.

(2.) IT is the case of the complainant who is the second respondent in these cases that the complainant is the owner of the tractor bearing No.KA -09 -T -4427, which was pledged with the petitioner - Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Services Limited and a sum of Rs.2,93,310/ - was obtained as loan from the said finance company. Since the complainant did not honour the commitment in so far as the repayment of the loan is concerned, the vehicle was seized by the said finance company consequent upon which the complainant has tiled a complaint of robbery and kidnap before the police. The petitioner has seized the vehicle and the same is in their custody.

(3.) IT is submitted by both the parties that the issue is settled between the parties and it is agreed that respondent No.2 shall pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ - being the total amount of loan inclusive of interest to the petitioner - finance company and a sum of Rs. 57,690/ -is paid by demand draft. Learned Counsel for the second respondent undertakes to pay the balance amount within one month from today. It is further agreed that the tractor bearing No.KA -09 -T -4427 shall be released to the custody of the complaint/Respondent No.2 forthwith. It is further agreed that in the case of failure to pay the balance amount by the second respondent, the petitioner is at liberty to take possession of the vehicle again. It is also agreed that the arbitration petition instituted by the second respondent shall be withdrawn.