PIRAPPA MAHADEO BIRAJDAR Vs. ARTI CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the complainant in R. C. C. No. 34 of 2000 pending on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Solapur. The charge therein is under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Respondents 1 and 2 are accused 1 and 2 respectively.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner in the complaint is that respondent 1 is a finance Corporation and respondent 2 is a partner thereof. The petitioner had obtained a loan of Rs. 80,000/- with interest at the rate of 3. 5% per annum for purchase of a tempo truck. It is the petitioner's case that the said amount was paid by him.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, in June, 1999, there was again some discussion between him and respondents 1 and 2, and respondents 1 and 2 agreed to give him another loan of Rs. 1 lac. The petitioner agreed to mortgage the said truck with respondents 1 and 2 for the said loan and as a security, certain cheques were also obtained by respondents 1 and 2 from the petitioner. On 15-10-1999, the petitioner took an amount of Rs. 1 lac by way of loan from respondents 1 and 2. He mortgaged his tempo truck bearing No. MH. 13/a 4688 with respondents 1 and 2 as security for the said loan. A charge has been created in that behalf in the R. C. Book. According to the petitioner, from time to time, he has paid some amount towards repay-ment of the said loan. There was some dispute between the petitioner and respondents 1 and 2 over the exact outstanding amount of the said loan. Therefore, on 21-3-2000, when the petitioner's driver was taking the said tempo truck to Solapur, the respondents with the help of their agent-Ramesh forcibly took custody of the said tempo truck from the petitioner's driver and hence respondents 1 and 2 committed an offence punishable under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. On these allegations, the complaint was filed by the petitioner on 24-3-2000.