SHAMSUNDER Vs. ICICI BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Pramod Gohadkar, Advocate for petitioner. Smt. Ami Prabal, Dy. Advocate General, for respondent No. 5.

(2.) INTER alia contending that on the complaint made by the petitioner respondent No. 5 Superintendent of Police is not taking any action for investigation of the offence and registration of the FIR, petitioner has filed this petition.

(3.) IT is the case of the petitioner that he had taken loan from the ICICI bank Limited and had purchased a Vehicle bearing M. P. 07 GA 0102. It is the case of the petitioner that on 22-2-07 respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have taken away vehicle illegally on the ground that petitioner is not repaying the loan. Inter alia contending that the action of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 amounts to criminal offence, petitioner made complaint to respondent No. 5 who has not taken any action, therefore, petitioner wants a direction to be issued for registration of fir and institute the criminal proceeding. The question involved in this petition is as to whether a writ petition for the said purpose is maintainable and whether a direction can be issued by this Court for registration of a FIR and for conducting investigation in the matter. The question of interference in such a matter by exercising jurisdiction in a petition under Article 226/227 of constitution has been considered by the Supreme Court in the case of gangadhar Janardan Mhatre Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2004) 7 SCC 768, it has been held by the Supreme Court that when the information is laid with the Police, but no action in that behalf is taken, the complainant is given power under Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code to lay the complaint before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence and the magistrate is required to inquire into the complaint as provided in Chapter XV of the Code. It has been held that a writ petition in such cases cannot be entertained. In Para 13 it has been held by Supreme Court that the principle in this regard is well settled by a judgment rendered in the case of All India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees' Union (Regd.) Vs. Union of India, (1996) 11 SCC 582, it has been held by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case that writ petition is not a proper remedy and the aggrieved person has to avail remedy available under the Code. This judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of gangadhar Janardan Mhatre (supra), and All India Institute of Medical Sciences employees' Union (supra), is again followed in the case of Minu Kumari and another Vs. State of Bihar and others, (2006) 4 SCC 359, and it has been held that when a specific remedy is provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure writ petition is not maintainable.