MAHABIR SINGH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner, who is an advocate by profession, seeks a direction/writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents no.1 & 2 to register a case against respondents no.3 & 4 and their accomplices who have been party to the illegal acts of stealing his car on 23.10.2004 from road-side parking of Kailash Colony, New Delhi and other offences like criminal breach of trust, extortion etc. and to take up the investigation in the matter. Yet another direction sought for on respondents no.1 & 2 is to recover the car and the valuable goods which were lying in the car and; lastly, for award of suitable compensation to the petitioner for the inconvenience, harassment and humiliation suffered by him at the hands of respondents no.3 & 4.

(2.) The petition has been filed with the averments and allegations that in the month of December, 2000 the petitioner purchased a Maruti Car (Wagon R) bearing registration No.DL-7C-A-7144 (Cool Silver Colour) bearing Engine No.BR4CS 100 4019566, Chasis No.BR4CS 100118844, from Rohan Motors, Noida, U.P. for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-. It is alleged that at the showroom of the respondent the petitioner was induced to take a loan from respondent no.3-ICICI Bank, hence, the petitioner took a loan of Rs.2,80,000/- which was to be returned in 60 equated monthly installments (EMI of Rs.6700/- p.m. starting from February, 2001 to January 2006) as per amortization schedule given to the petitioner. The petitioner gave post-dated cheques of Bank of Baroda to respondent no.3 and respondent no.3, through its agent Rohan Motors, Noida, got signed from the petitioner certain documents in blank such as agreement, promissory note, receipt etc., and also a hypothication endorsement was made on the registration certificate of the vehicle. It is alleged that in the month of June, 2001 the petitioner shifted his residence from Flat No.20-B, Pocket-C, DDA SFS Flats, Mayur Vihar, Phase-III, New Delhi to Gurgaon and, hence, he had to close his account with the Bank of Baroda, Mayur Vihar. After shifting to Gurgaon, on an oral request made by the petitioner on phone, the agent/collection boys of respondent no.3 used to come to the office of the petitioner at A-31/37, First Floor, Kailash Colony, New Delhi and collect the EMI amounts which were given to them against receipts of respondent no.3. It is alleged that from April, 2003 the agents/collection boys of respondent no.3 stopped coming to the office of the petitioner to collect the EMI and consequently, the petitioner issued a cheque dated 15.8.2003 for a sum of Rs.13,800/- along with a letter of even date and communicating his new address and also expressing his desire to make pre-payment of all the outstanding amount and so requested the respondent to send him the foreclosure statement so that he could discharge the hypothication. Petitioner is stated to have made more than 30 payments to respondent no.3 by July, 2004 when the Area Manager (Delhi), Auto Collection Department of respondent no.3 visited the office of the petitioner in Kailash Colony and falsely claimed that as per the record of respondent no.3 there was a default of 3 EMIs in the account of the petitioner and demanded the amount for the same. The petitioner showed him the receipts and pointed out the discrepancies in their account. The Area Manager assured the petitioner to look into the matter. The petitioner made certain payment in cash in the month of July, 2004 and after-wards asked the respondent to send his officials to collect the money in cash and reconcile the statement but none came from the office of respondent no.3. Some more payments were stated to have been made by the petitioner.

(3.) It is further alleged that on 23.10.2004 the petitioner returned from Chandigarh in the above numbered vehicle after attending some social function and he had parked his said car on the road-side of the market of Kailash Colony at about 6.00 p.m. The car at that time had certain valuables like jewellery of his wife, camera, cash etc. When at about 8.00 p.m. he went to the parking place of the car he found that the car in question was missing and so looking for his car in the area the petitioner informed the Police Control Room at about 8.25 p.m. On 25.10.2004 the petitioner visited the police station and met SHO-respondent no.2 and enquired about the progress regarding his complaint of theft of his car lodged by him and the petitioner was directed to meet Mr.Sanjeev Dhodi, the I.O., who noted down the mobile number and car number of the petitioner in his diary. On 28.10.2004 the petitioner again contacted the said I.O. and when the petitioner gave him his written complaint of theft of the said car and list of articles which were there in the car at the time of theft on 23.10.2004, the I.O. returned his complaint saying that the complaint should also bear the engine and chasis number of the stolen car otherwise the complaint was useless. The petitioner thereafter provided the engine number and chasis number of the car. The petitioner also informed respondent no.3 through respondent no.4 about the theft of his car and he also visited the office of respondent no.3 at Jhandewalan and on 3.11.2004 when he was informed that the car had been removed by them on 23.10.2004 owning to the default in the payment of installments. Respondent no.4 also admitted that the car was in their possession and could be released only on the petitioner paying the balance entire amount of Rs.1,69,882/- as shown in the statement which included re-possession charges of Rs.9,650/-, Rs.500/- as valuation charges, Rs.2,600/- as foreclosure charges, Rs.3,978/- as bouncing charges, Rs.25,598/- as over due charges, Rs.9,874/- as interest under threat and coercion and the compelling circumstances and with a view to stop the disposal of the car by respondent no.3 the petitioner agreed to pay the entire amount and paid on 15.11.2004 a sum of Rs.40,000/- by a cheque. It is alleged that the car was still not handed over to the petitioner and the respondent insisted on the petitioner to give in writing that he has received the car in the same condition in which it was handed over by him to the respondent. The above facts were brought to the notice of respondents no.1 & 2 but there was no action by respondent no.1 & 2 in registering an FIR and taking up the investigation and it is alleged that these authorities have failed to discharge their statutory obligations. Hence, the petition.