ASHOK KUMAR Vs. BALARAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the F.I.R. in Crime No. 42/96 of Mukkom Police Station.

(2.) The petitioner is the proprietor of M/s. Kothari Investment, Madras. The firm is engaged in the business of the financing the intending purchase of motor vehicles. The firm advanced certain amounts to one Chandran to purchase the vehicle KLZ 8145 on a hire purchase agreement. The petitioner also advanced a loan to one Balakrishnan to purchase vehicle No. KRD 2799 on hire purchase agreement. Sri. Balakrishnan stood as surety for the loan amount taken by Chandran. One of the conditions of the hire purchase agreement with Balakrishnan is that in case of default in payment of installment dues by Chandran his vehicle (KLZ 8145) can also be seized. While the hire purchase agreement was in force, Chandran sold the vehicle to one Raghupathi. Raghupathi in turn sold the vehicle to the complainant in the said crime case, who is the first respondent herein. It is admitted in the complaint petition that the sum of Rs. 4,500 / - was still due to the petitioner in terms of the hire purchase agreement in respect of vehicle No. KLZ 8145. It is alleged by the first respondent that he had sent the vehicle to the workshop for some repairs. While the vehicle was being kept in the premises of the workshop, namely, Vanamali Body Builders, Mukkom, the petitioner along with 7 others forcibly took away the vehicle without heeding to the protest of the workers employed in the workshop. It is further stated in the F.I.R. that the first respondent came to know that the vehicle was seized on account of the facts that the owner of the vehicle KRD 2799, namely, Balakrishnan had committed default in payment of the installment dues to the petitioner. The first respondent requested the petitioner and others to return the vehicle but it was not done. Hence a complaint petition was filed in the court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thamarassery, I alleging an offence under S.395 IPC against the petitioner and others. It was sent to the police under S.156 Crl. PC for investigation. Accordingly, the police registered the crime case.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that no prima facie case has been made out under S.395 IPC against the petitioner. The petitioner re - possessed the vehicle in terms of the conditions of the hire purchase agreement.