UJJWALLAA FOUNDATIONS LTD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRL.O.P.No.15027 of 1999 has been filed against the respondents i.e., (1) Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, St.Thomas Mount,Chennai, and (2) M/s.Dugar Finance India Limited, represented by its Assistant Manager, Vijayalakshmi, Chennai, praying for a direction to the respondents to handover possession of two vehicles.

(2.) IN the affidavit filed in support of this petition, the petitioner M/s.Ujjwallaa Foundations Limited, Chennai has made the following averments: The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act and the registered owner of vehicles two deluxe buses bearing Registration No.APO.2/V.2574 and APO.2/V.3213. The petitioner obtained permits from Road Transport Authority for running the buses between the routes specified. The registration certificate for both the vehicles stand in the name of the petitioner. The second respondent filed a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate II, Ponneri in Crl.M.P.No.4086 of 1998 on 20.9.1998 stating that the petitioner company has dismantled two buses mentioned above and sold some parts and misappropriated the sale proceeds and thereby cheated the second respondent, that therefore they have committed offence under Secs.406 and 420, I.P.C. The second respondent prayed for a suitable direction be issued to the first respondent INspector of Police, District Crime Branch, St.Thomas Mount to register a case and investigate the alleged offences. About ten months later, the petitioner again filed a petition on 2.7.1999 purporting to be under Sec.93, Crl.P.C. and praying for issue of a warrant directing the Superintendent of Police, Anantapur, Andhra Pradesh to search and seize the abovesaid two vehicles, namely Deluxe buses bearing Registration Nos. APO.2/V.2574 and APO.2/V.3213. The Judicial Magistrate II, Ponneri on the said application passed an order on 2.7.1999 itself directing the Superintendent of Police, Anantapur, Andhra Pradesh to search, seize and produce two buses referred to above on or before 31.7.1999 without issuing any summons under Sec.91, Crl.P.C. The order passed by the learned Magistrate directing the. Superintendent of Police, Anantapur, Andhra Pradesh to seize two buses is an illegal order passed without application of mind and the learned Magistrate has been misdirected by the second respondent who filed a false complaint and a petition before the said court. The INspector of Police, D.C.B., St.Thomas Mount, Chennai also directed two constables to accompany the petitioner, namely the second respondent and with the help of Superintendent of Police, Anantapur, Andhra Pradesh, seized the vehicles above stated at Puttapurthi on 5.7.1999 and the seizure was effected from one Babu, an employee of the petitioner company at Puttapurthi, from whom both of them have obtained acknowledgment to the effect that the vehicles have been taken by them in pursuance of the warrant and in running condition. The acknowledgment and the admission made by the respondents themselves would show that the allegation made in the private complaint that the petitioner has dismantled the buses and sold parts to third parties are not true because they themselves admittedly took two buses which were in running condition. The buses were seized from the petitioner and were handed over to the second respondent by the first respondent at Madras. Aggrieved at the illegal actions taken by the second respondent, the petitioner came to the Court of Judicial Magistrate II, Ponneri and fifed a petition under Sec.457, Crl.P.C. praying for a direction to return the seized vehicles to the custody of the petitioner, But the learned Magistrate who has earlier issued a warrant for seizure has merely returned the petition with an endorsement that the vehicles were not available before the court because they are not produced by the police. The vehicles have been thus fraudulently and illegally seized from the lawful possession of the petitioner and handed over to the second respondent. The petitioner has purchased the vehicles under two hire purchase agreements with the second respondent Dugar Finance INdia Limited, and they have paid a sum of Rs.22.92 lakhs which is more than 3/4th of the total value of hire purchase money. The dispute is only a civil dispute, but suppressing all these facts and by making false representations, the second respondent has asked seizure of vehicles from the petitioner for which the learned Magistrate has issued an order without application of his mind. No notice has been sent to the petitioner before issuing warrant. The second respondent originally preferred a complaint on 20.9.1998 and after lapse of nearly ten months filed Crl.M.P.No. 217 of 1999 and has obtained an illegal warrant of seizure. Vehicles are now under the custody of the second respondent who has obtained the same illegally by making false allegations in the court. The petitioner is put to much loss and sufferings because he has to spent daily heavy amounts for taking persons from Puttapurthi to a site where a project work is carried on by the petitioner. Obtaining of warrant after filing a false complaint is clear abuse of process of law indulged by the second respondent and the first respondent has colluded with him. Even as per the search warrant which was issued without application of mind, the vehicles after seizure must have been produced before the Magistrate. They were not produced and they were handed over to the second respondent. Atleast when this petitioner filed a petition before the Judicial Magistrate II, Ponneri, the court ought to have issued a direction calling upon the police and the second respondent to produce the vehicles before him and should have adjudicated upon the petition filed by this petitioner. Learned Judicial Magistrate II, Ponneri exercised the power which he was not possessed of, but later declined to exercise his jurisdiction without application of mind. The petitioner is incurring loss at the rate of Rs.2,000 per day because of the high handedness action of the second respondent. Therefore, this petition is filed with a prayer to direct the second respondent to handover possession of two deluxe buses bearing Registration No.APO.2/V 2574 and APO.2/V.3213 in the same condition at the time when they were seized.

(3.) THE second respondent also filed Crl.M.P.No.10766 of 1999 to vacate the interim direction granted in Crl.M.P.No.8425 of 1999.