MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA FINANCIAL Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the medium of instant petition filed under Section 561-A Cr.P.C, petitioner seeks quashment of order dated 25th March, 2014, passed by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Doda, by which the Court has released the vehicle bearing Registration No.JK02AP-4885 (Tempo Traveller) in favour of respondent No. 3 and rejected the application of the petitioner for release of vehicle in question in favour of the petitioner Company in spite of the admitted fact that the petitioner is the real owner of the said vehicle.

(2.) The facts in nutshell are that the petitioner-company is a Finance Company registered under the Companies Act and deals with the business of financing for the purchase of the vehicle by granting the vehicle loan with term repayment having its Head Office at Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai and Branch Offices all over the country and number of such branches are operating within the territorial limits of the State of Jammu & Kashmir. The petitioner-Company is a legal entity and, thus, can sue and be sued. The respondent No.3 approached the petitioner- Company in the month of May, 2010 and requested for obtaining term loan for the purchase of the vehicle. The petitioner-Company accepted the proposal of the respondent No.3 and provided credit facility of Rs. 5,75,000/- and consequently, loan cum hypothecation Agreement No.1198451 was executed on 28.05.2010 between the petitioner-Company and respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 became wilful and intentional defaulter and consequently, the matter was referred to the sole arbitrator and the Sole Arbitrator has passed the award dated 24.11.2012 (Annexure-B) in favour of the petitioner-Company.

(3.) It has been stated in the instant petition that on 12.02.2014, the employees of the petitioner-Company approached the respondent No. 3 and asked him to surrender the vehicle, which the respondent No.3 agreed that the employees of the petitioner-Company took the custody of the vehicle in question with the consent of the respondent No. 3 and the employees of the petitioner- Company informed the SHO, Police Station, Doda about the factum of repossessing of the vehicle. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 cooked up a false and frivolous story and filed a complaint in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Doda. Initially, the police of Police Station, Doda enquired the matter and vide report dated 17.02.2014 that the allegations leveled in the complaint are false and frivolous and further reported that the respondent No.3 is a defaulter. Thereafter, since the matter has been referred to the Police of Police Station, Doda by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Doda under section 156 (3) Cr. P.C and, therefore, the police left with no other option but to register the case and the same was registered on 23.02.2014 vide FIR No.33/2014 for the commission of offences punishable under Section 323, 342, 504, 506, 382 RPC in which petitioner also arrayed as one of the accused. Thereafter, the petitioner-Company on demand, gave the vehicle in question to the Police and the Police seized the vehicle. The petitioner-Company filed an application for release of vehicle and similarly the respondent No.3 also filed an application for release of vehicle in his favour and these two applications were clubbed by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Doda and decided the same by a common order dated 25.03.2014. By the medium of the impugned order, the Court below allowed the application filed by the respondent No. 3 for release of vehicle and rejected the application filed by the petitioner-Company.