CHERAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners approach this Court with a prayer to call for the records relating to C.C.No.547 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul and quash the same

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the 1st petitioner is the Branch Manager of the Cholamandalam D.B.S. Finance Limited and he is arrayed as A2 in the case. and the 2nd petitioner is the bonafide purchaser of the vehicle from the 1st respondent. The case of prosecution is that one Vimala has availed loan for purchasing of lorry and executed the loan agreement and repayment schedule and further since the said Vimala is default in repayment and sold the vehicle to 3rd party and hence the clause 11 of the said loan agreement, the vehicle has been re-possessed and hence, the defacto complainant/second respondent, who is in possession of the vehicle has given a complaint and on the basis of the said complaint given by him, a case has been registered in crime No.700 of 2009 for the offence under Sections 379 and 406 of I.P.C and final report has been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul, which was taken on file in C.C.No.547 of 2009. Since it is admittedly a civil matter, the seizure of the subject vehicle was pursuant to the power of re-possession set out in the agreement between the financier and the borrower. No force was employed nor any musclemen were utilized for effecting the re-possession and the lorry has been taken back by the defacto complainant/2nd respondent as per the order of this court. Therefore, continuing to prosecute the petitioner can only be called as gross abuse of legal process and hence, he prayed for allowing of the petition. To substantiate his case, he relied upon various decisions of the Apex Court.

(3.) The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit one Vimala on 01.10.2007 has obtained loan for a sum of Rs.3,80,000/- for purchasing a lorry bearing Registration No.KA 1B 7778 and the monthly EMI is Rs.15,269/- and since she did not repay the amount, the 1st petitioner re-possessed the vehicle and the defacto complainant/2nd respondent purchased the same for a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- whereas the worth of the lorry is Rs.7 lakhs. Thereafter, the petitioners/accused stolen the vehicle from the defacto complainant and sold the same to one Subramani, who is the 2nd petitioner and hence the 2nd respondent, who has purchased the vehicle from Vimala, has filed a private complainant against the petitioners and also filed a petition under Section 451 of Cr.P.C and get back the vehicle from the Court. The 4th and 5th accused had filed a quash petition before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.5578 of 2008, but the same was dismissed on 04.08.2009 and now the petitioners have filed this quash petition once again and hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the petition.