LAWS(MAD)-2014-6-67

ABDUL HUSSAIN Vs. INDUSIND BANK

Decided On June 18, 2014
ABDUL HUSSAIN Appellant
V/S
Indusind Bank Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order of the Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur, dated 10.10.2006.

(2.) The petitioner filed an application before the Court below under Sections 451 & 457 Cr.P.C., for return/release of black colour Santro car bearing registration No.TN.02U-4775 to the petitioner. It was submitted by the petitioner that on 14.09.2006 at about 3.45p.m., when he was returning from his relatives house in the said vehicle, some unknown persons waylaid him near Dr.Cherian Hospital, Ambattur Estate Road, and asked the petitioner and his relative to get down from the car and drove away with the car along with the sum of Rs.35,000/- and certain other documents. It is stated that the petitioner lodged a complaint with the Police that the vehicle is missing and the vehicle traced by the Police was in the custody of the finance company. Therefore, the petitioner sought for release/return of the vehicle.

(3.) The learned Judicial Magistrate by order dated 10.10.2006, directed release of the vehicle to the petitioner subject to certain conditions. At that stage of the matter, M/s.Indusind Bank, who is the first respondent herein filed an application before the Court below stating that the petitioner herein purchased the Santro Car by entering into hire purchase agreement with them on 06.06.2005 and as per the terms of the agreement, the petitioner has to pay a sum of Rs.9,205/- every month for 48 months and the petitioner became a chronic defaulter and an amount of Rs.3,70,662/- was due and payable and the car was repossessed on 14.09.2006, and the petitioner lodged a false complaint, as if the car was forcibly taken. Since a case was registered based on the false complaint given by the petitioner, as per the direction of the Police, the car was surrendered to the first respondent Police and that the original R.C., book was with the respondent company and they sought for custody of the vehicle, as they are full owner and they were not made party to the petition filed by the petitioner for return of vehicle which was disposed on 10.10.2006.