D LINGAM Vs. PRASANT INVESTMENTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition seeks to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioners herein in C.C.No.9722 of 2005 on the file of III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.

(2.) THE petitioners herein are the first and second accused in the case. THE complaint against them informs that the complainant is a financier and that the first accused induced the respondent/complainant to sanction loan towards purchase of a vehicle under a Hire Purchase Agreement. THE first petitioner promised to repay the amount in 24 monthly installments to the financier under the Hire Purchase Agreement. THE second accused was the guarantor under the said agreement. Believing the said representations of both accused, the financier granted loan under the Hire Purchase agreement. THE first accused had paid only one installment of Rs.5,500/- against a sum of Rs.1,87,200/- due along with the additional hire charges. THE payment of dues or, in the alternative, surrender of the vehicle had been sought for by the complainant. Both the accused have failed to comply with the demand. THE complainant states that instead of surrendering the vehicle, the accused were trying to sell the vehicle to a 3rd party by fabricating false documents behind the back of the complainant. On these allegations, the accused are said to have committed the offence of criminal breach of trust and cheating punishable under Sections 420 and 406 read with 34 of IPC. THE lower Court has taken cognizance of the offence and issued summons to the accused in C.C.No.9722 of 2005 on the file of III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.

(3.) ON consideration of the rival submissions, this Court finds that the complaint is totally misplaced and the allegation therein, do not reveal the commission of any offence whatsoever. In the event of non repayment, in keeping with the Hire Purchase Agreement, the complainant has to proceed before the Civil Court and also may move to seize the vehicle and sell the same in accordance with law. A mere apprehension of the complainant that a forged document would be prepared and the vehicle sold on the strength thereof does not merit any consideration.