GOPINATH RAO MIRASKAR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND INSPECTOR OF POLICE SUBRAMANYA NAGAR POLICE STATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of mandamus to the respondents to take cognizance of the offence said to have been committed by the persons as indicated in the complaint given by the petitioner to the second respondent on 08.01.2013. The case of the petitioner is that he had purchased a TATA SUMO vehicle bearing No. KA -04 MA 3204 after availing finance from the Tata Finance Limited. In respect of the said transaction since there were certain disputes between the petitioner and the said Tata Finance Limited, the petitioner had filed a suit in O.S. No. 2324/2002 seeking injunction against the respondents from seizing the vehicle. The Court below after considering the rival contentions has decreed the suit by its judgment dated 01.07.2006. The petitioner thereafter is stated to have been in possession of the said vehicle. When that was the position, the petitioner had been intimidated and the vehicle has been taken away from him on 08.01.2013 by certain unruly elements. In that regard, the petitioner is stated to have made complaint to the second respondent. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner has been issued with the endorsement dated 21.03.2013. The petitioner is therefore before this Court claiming to be aggrieved by the said endorsement.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner would contend that the respondents were not justified in issuing such endorsement without registering a FIR and conducting investigation in the matter. It is his case that the finance obtained by the petitioner is from Tata Finance Limited and presently, by the objection statement filed by the respondents to the instant petition it has been indicated that the vehicle has been seized by the Kotak Mahindra Prime Company. It is his case that he has no transaction whatsoever with the said Company and therefore, the possession of the vehicle could not have been taken by the said company which would amount to theft, which is a cognizable offence. Therefore, the respondents should have registered the case and the investigation should have been completed. Hence, it is contended that the respondents are not justified.