UTHAM KUMAR JAIN Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an accused in Crime No.43 of 2004 of Town Police Station, Sangareddy, under Sections 379 and 323 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC'). In this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C), the petitioner seeks to quash the said crime on the ground that if investigation into the crime is allowed, the same would amount to abuse of process of law.

(2.) The fact of the matter is as follows. The petitioner claims to be engaged in the business of financing in the name and style of 'Sumangal Finance and Investments.' It is alleged that second respondent approached the petitioner for a loan to purchase D.C.M. commercial vehicle on hire-purchase basis. Accepting the request, the petitioner purchased D.C.M. commercial goods vehicle bearing registration No.AP 23.T.2728 against execution of hire-purchase agreement dated 30-10-1995. Under the said agreement, the petitioner is owner of the vehicle and second respondent is hirer. The Road Transport authorities also recognised hire-purchase agreement by duly endorsing the same in the Registration Certificate Book (R.C. Book). Though second respondent agreed to pay monthly instalments, she committed default in payment. As a consequence of default in payment of instalments, the petitioner invoked the relevant clauses in hire-purchase agreement and seized the vehicle duly informing the concerned police of P.S.Ramachandrapuram/B.H.E.L through telegram. Till the last instalment is paid, the financier is the real owner and therefore, the vehicle is seized. Therefore, the complaint lodged by respondents 2 and 3 does not disclose the commission of offence under Section 379 of IPC. Be it noted that initially respondents 2 and 3 filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., on the file of Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class. The same was forwarded to S.H.O., Town Police Station, Sangareddy whereupon Crime No.43 of 2004 was registered.

(3.) This Court admitted the matter and stayed all further proceedings in Crime No.43 of 2004 until further orders. Respondents 2 and 3 filed Crl.M.P.No.236 of 2005 praying this Court to vacate the interim order. When the miscellaneous application was listed before this Court, the matter was heard finally.