KEDAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SEEKING a direction to the police authorities to register a criminal case against officers of Indus Ind Bank Ltd. particularly respondent No.8 Shri Mahesh Singh in pursuance to a report Annexure P/8 submitted by the police authorities on 31.12.2011 and further seeking for quashing a show cause notice issued by the Regional Trasport Authority, Rewa on 29.12.2011 as contained in Annexures P/10(A) and P/10(B), this writ petition has been filed.

(2.) PETITIONER claims to be owner of two trucks bearing No. MP17HH/0460 and MP17HH/0251. The aforesaid trucks were purchased by the petitioner after obtaining the loan of Rs.13 Lacs and Rs.17 Lacs respectively and the vehicle was purchased under a Hire Purchase Scheme of the Bank. Be it as it may be, records indicate that petitioner did not submit the installment for repayment of loan in time, as a result the amount outstanding against the petitioner mounted and therefore, it is seen that according to the petitioner on 6.11.2011, the truck in question was taken away by the representatives of the Bank from the garage of one Lallu Mistri with the help of a crane belonging to Satnam Crane Services. It is stated that in a illegal manner and by use of force, possession was taken over and therefore, petitioner lodged complaint with various authorities particularly the police authorities on 8.11.2011, 17.11.2011 and 28.11.2011. The Superintendent of Police and Inspector General, Rewa directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police to conduct enquiry. The Officer conducted enquiry and vide Annexure P/ 8 submitted a report on 31.12.2011 holding that the truck has been taken over by the representatives of the Bank in an illegal manner by use of force and therefore, action should be taken. The first grievance of the petitioner is that in pursuance to this report as no action is taken against the officers of respondent Bank particularly, respondent No.8, the prayer is that direction be issued to the Superintendent of Police and Inspector General of Police, Rewa to take cognization of the report Annexure P/8 dated 31.12.2011 and register a criminal case against respondent No.8 and other officers of the Bank. That apart, it is stated that after taking over of the truck as respondent No.8 has requested the Regional Transport Officer, Rewa to get the registration changed and for the said purpose, a show cause notice is issued on 29.12.2011, second prayer made is that show cause notices be quashed.

(3.) BY filing rejoinder and documents I.A. No.16224/2014, learned counsel has tried to indicate to this Court various reasons to say that documents are forged and signatures have been affixed in an illegal manner. Submitting that the possession of the truck is taken over by using force and provisions contained in Section 13 and 14 of the Secutarization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets Act have not been followed and in an illegal manner the possession of the truck is taken over, interference is sought for. Apart from placing reliance in the case of Prakash Kaur (supra) my attention is also drawn to a subsequent judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd. Vs. S. Vijayalaxmi - (2012)1 SCC 1 to say that a hirer is not entitled to take possession of the mortgage vehicle by use of force and without following due process of law. Accordingly Shri A. P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the manner in which possession is taken over cannot be approved, it is a process contrary to law and as forged and fabricated documents have been used to show consent of the petitioner for surrendering the vehicle and issuance of notice to the petitioner, action be taken against the respondents.