M RAMAIYA Vs. J SARAVANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners herein are the accused 1 to 3 in C.C.No,9/2006, which is now pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Namakkal. THE above said case was instituted on a private complaint preferred by the respondent herein under Section 200 Cr.P.C alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 380, 383, 420 and 506(ii) IPC. THE present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the criminal proceedings instituted against them in the above said CC on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, they run a partnership firm in the name and style of Jai Sriram Finance, of which the first petitioner is the managing partner and the other two petitioners are partners. The respondent herein had entered into a financial arrangement with the said firm in the form of a hire purchase agreement on 21.11.2001 for a loan of Rs.3,60,000/- in respect of a lorry bearing Regn.No.KA-01 A-3641 agreeing to repay the said loan amount with interest in equal monthly instalments. As the respondent, after paying the first six instalments, was not in a position to make payment of further instalments, he requested the petitioners to give him time so that he would find out a right person to purchase the lorry. Consequently, the respondent introduced one Arularasan son of Duraisamy to pay a substantial amount on 03.12.2005 and agreed to pay the remaining instalments and the respondent also issued a 'No Objection Certificate' for cancelling the hire purchase agreement. The said Arularasan paid the entire balance due to the above said Jai Sriram Finance and got the endorsement of hire purchase agreement cancelled. The said Arularasan, after getting the endorsement of the hire purchase agreement cancelled, got the RC changed in his name and he is now in possession of the vehicle. As such with a malafide intention to harass the petitioners and to get wrongful gain, the respondent has preferred the above said criminal complaint and the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Namakkal also took cognizance of the offences and registered the complaint as a calendar case without appreciating the fact that the contents of the complaint did not make out a prima-facie case against the petitioners.

(3.) IT is also the contention of the respondent that the petitioners having obtained signatures in blank forms and blank bond papers, were trying to cause mutation in the registration certificate that after the lodging of the complaint, they had entrusted the custody of the vehicle to a third person that under the said circumstances, according to the respondent, the case was rightly taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Namakkal, as the complaint disclosed the commission of congnizable offences punishable under Sections 380, 383, 415, 520 and 506(ii) and that therefore, the present petition filed by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. deserves to be dismissed as there is no merit in it.