S.S. Saron, J. - (1.) THIS petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.' for short) has been filed by the Petitioner for issuing appropriate directions to Respondents No. 1 and 2 to take appropriate legal action in accordance with law by taking cognizance of the incident that occurred on 3.7.2007. The Tavera vehicle of the Petitioner it is stated was snatched at gun point by the musclemen of the HDFC Bank Ltd. (Respondent No. 3). In this regard a complaint dated 3.7.2007 (Annexure P -2) was filed by the Petitioner before the Superintendent of Police, Faridabad(Respondent No. 2).
(2.) THE case of the Petitioner is that he owns a Tavera vehicle bearing registration No. HR38M -2614 which has been financed by the HDFC Bank Ltd. (Respondent No. 3.). A copy of the Registration Certificate (Annexure P -1) has been placed on record. Earlier the vehicle was got financed from ICICI Bank, New Delhi. Thereafter in December, 2006 a representative of the HDFC Bank Ltd. (Respondent No. 3.) informed the Petitioner by visiting his house that he is entitled for personal loan. The Petitioner agreed and signed various blank papers. The Registration Certificate of the Tavera vehicle was also taken for verification purposes. The HDFC Bank Ltd. (Respondent No. 3.) refinanced the loan of Tavera vehicle without the consent of the Petitioner and started deducting instalments of Rs. 18, 403/ - as Equated Monthly Instalments (EMI). On suspicion, the Petitioner asked for statement of accounts and HDFC Bank Ltd. (Respondent No. 3.) sent a photocopy of the loan agreement of statement of accounts, which, for the first time, revealed to the Petitioner that his signatures and photographs were forged and two false identifications had also been shown. Regarding these allegations a separate criminal complaint has been filed by the Petitioner which is pending in the court at Faridabad and is fixed for recording preliminary evidence. On 3.7.2007 at about 8.00 a.m. the Petitioner was going in his Tavera vehicle to Delhi for the treatment of his wife in a hospital. The wife of the Petitioner was already under treatment for In Vitro Fertilisation (IVF). When the Petitioner reached near K.C. Cinema, Faridabad, five -six well built persons came in a Scorpio vehicle and snatched the vehicle that was being driven by the Petitioner by causing him fist blows. The vehicle was snatched at gun point. While going back with the vehicle, it was proclaimed by those persons that the vehicle may be taken by the Petitioner from their head office at Rajouri Garden, Delhi after depositing the due instalments. It is alleged that a sum of Rs. 35, 000/ - and documents regarding treatment of the wife of the Petitioner which were lying in the dash board of the vehicle, were also taken. The Petitioner immediately made a complaint to the police by dialing 100 from his personal mobile phone but no satisfactory response was given. Then he sent a representation dated 3.7.2007 (Annexure P -2) to the Superintendent of Police (Respondent No. 2) and Director General of Police, Haryana. It is submitted that according to the terms and conditions regarding payment of the instalments of loan, the Petitioner was to pay only two instalments.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the incident of forcibly snatching the vehicle by musclemen of HDFC Bank Ltd. (Respondent No. 3.) clearly make out the commission of a cognizable offence for which FIR is liable to be registered by the Respondents No. 1 and 2 against the accused. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd. V. Prakash Kaur and Ors.,, 2007 (2) RCR (Cri) 76. It has been observed therein that a financier or bank cannot take away a vehicle forcibly by hiring musclemen and that they can only proceed in accordance with law. It is submitted that the action of Respondent No. 3 bank in employing Gundas and musclemen for taking possession of the vehicle cannot be termed as an act which is in accordance with law. It is also submitted that Respondent No. 3 -bank despite being served, has not put in appearance , which in fact amounts to acceptance of the averments made by the Petitioner. It is also submitted that the bank is liable to be directed to return the vehicle.;