SUNDARAM FINANCE LIMITED Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent herein / Inspector of Police, who is attached to the K.K.Nagar Police Station has registered a criminal case in Crime No.783 of 2002, against the accused for an offence under Section 379 IPC. At this stage, the defacto complainant, viz., M/s.Sundaram Finance Limited has filed Crl.M.P.No.4703 of 2004, to permit the petitioner-company to sell the vehicle bearing registration TN-09-U-7202 and permit them to deposit the sale proceeds before the trial Court. The learned XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai observing that a similar petition filed by the petitioner, had been dismissed by the Court on 16.03.2004 and on observing that a similar petition for the same relief cannot be presented before the Court as it has no power to review its own order, dismissed the petition.

(2.) Against the said dismissal order, the above revision has been filed by the defacto complainant.

(3.) The highly competent counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the learned Magistrate failed to consider that the revision petitioner was the owner of the vehicle and as such, he is entitled to receive the vehicle. The petitioner Company is a Public Limited Company and doing hire-purchase of automobiles and machineries and leasing of equipments. The said company had purchased the said car from M/s.D.S.E. Motors (P) Ltd., Annasalai under invoice dated 13.07.2001 and the vehicle stands in the name of the petitioner company. The R.C.book and permit and other tax receipts and insurance particulars are in the name of the petitioner Company. The said vehicle was entrusted to the second respondent herein on the basis of hire purchase agreement, which was repayable in 48 monthly installments, commencing from 13.07.2001. Therefore, the relationship between the defacto complainant and the accused are as owner and hirer and as such, the revision petitioner herein is entitled to get back his vehicle bearing registration No.TN-09-U-7202. The highly competent counsel further contended that one Kirubakaran levelled a complaint before the Inspector of Police stating that the said vehicle had been stolen from his premises. On the strength of the said complaint, F.I.R. had been registered and the vehicle was seized. Prior to the seizing of the vehicle, the said vehicle met with an accident and the vehicle was left there itself. Further, the petitioner was given interim custody of the vehicle, as per the order passed by the learned Magistrate in Crl.M.P.No.1017 of 2003, after imposing of some conditions. As such, the vehicle had been handed over to the revision petitioner herein. Now, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has stated that the petitioner has sought permission from the learned Magistrate to sell the said car and deposit the amount before the learned Magistrate since the said vehicle is deteriorating day by day. If the vehicle is sold in the public auction and the sale amount is deposited in Court, no one would be prejudiced and the character of the prosecution case will not be changed. Hence, the very competent counsel entreats the Court to permit the petitioner to sell the said car.