SABU Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner availed a loan from the Thiruvananthapuram branch of the H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd., for purchasing a Skoda car. He committed default in paying a few monthly instalments. Though he was willing to clear the defaulted instalments, the 2nd respondent moved the Criminal Court by filing a complaint against him under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The respondents 2 and 3, who are respectively the Deputy Manager and Senior Manager of the said Bank, threatened the petitioner that they will take the vehicle by force, unless he surrenders the same to them. On 13/06/2008, the 2nd respondent along with five local goondas stopped the petitioner's vehicle near Kowdiar and tried to take it by force. Later, on 18/06/2008 the 2nd respondent along with eight goondas, armed with deadly weapons, stopped the petitioner's vehicle near Nanthencode. They threatened to kill the petitioner unless he surrenders the vehicle to the 3rd respondent. Immediately, the petitioner approached the 1st respondent Assistant Commissioner of Police and requested for police protection to his life and property. Again, on 09/07/2008, while the petitioner was returning home, the respondents 2 and 3 along with three goondas stopped his car at Maruthankuzhi and threatened to kill him, unless he surrenders the vehicle to them. The petitioner submits, again, the respondents 2 and 3 along with some musclemen came to his flat and threatened his wife that they will kill her also. Though the petitioner approached the 1st respondent by filing a complaint on 09/07/2008, seeking police protection, no effective steps were taken due to the influence of respondents 2 and 3. Ext. P1 is the said complaint. The police have registered a crime against respondents 2 and 3, based on the complaint filed by him. The respondents 2 and 3 have moved this Court, seeking anticipatory bail, it is submitted. The petitioner submits, the threat against his life and also to take the vehicle by force is continuing and therefore, this writ petition is filed, seeking the following relief:

(2.) The respondents 2 and 3 have filed a counter affidavit, denying the allegations against them. It is submitted that the allegation that they attempted to take forcible repossession of the vehicle is false. No cause of action has arisen for the petitioner to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. Everything that is narrated in the petition is only a cock and bull story. The petitioner has failed to pay the instalments continuously and as on this date, the total amount of defaulted instalments will come to Rs.1,76,757/-. The cheques issued by the petitioner for the monthly remittances were dishonoured and prosecution under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been launched against him. The petitioner being aware of the legal steps taken by the Bank to recover the loan amount, has come up with this petition, making false allegations against the party respondents and therefore, they pray for dismissal of the writ petition.

(3.) The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that on the basis of the information lodged by the petitioner, a crime has been registered against respondents 2 and 3 under S.341 and 506 read with S.34 of the IPC, and under S.27 of the Arms Act.