Karnataka High Court
M/S Shriram Transport Finance Co., ... vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 14 June, 2017
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N. Phaneendra
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3250/2015
BETWEEN:
M/S SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO., LTD.,
P. B. ROAD, NEAR BILAL COMPOUND,
DAVANAGERE-577001.
REP. BY ITS SR.EXECUTIVE (LEGAL),
M. C. NAGABHUSHAN,
S/O CHIKKARANGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI M. J. ALVA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
RMC POLICE STATION,
DAVANAGERE-577002.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SANDESH J. CHOUTA, SPP-II)
......
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE BY THE ADVOCATE FOR
THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT
MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 4.4.2014 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND S.J., DAVANAGERE IN CRL.R.P.NO.16/2014 AND THE
ORDERS DATED 27.12.2013 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
J.M.F.C.-II COURT, DAVANAGERE IN C.C.NO.310/2011
WHICH ARE PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND B
RESPECTIVELY.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned SPP for State. Perused the records.
2. Petitioner has called in question the orders passed by the learned JMFC-II, Davanagere, in C.C.No.310/ 2011 and confirmed by the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere, in Crl.R.P.No.16/2014 dated 04.04.2014, wherein both the Courts have rejected the prayer of the petitioner seeking permission to sell the vehicle seized in connection with C.C.No.310/2011 bearing registration No.KA-36/5667. The said vehicle was given to the interim custody of the petitioner, the Court has also refused to relax the condition imposed upon the petitioner with regard to non-alienation of the said vehicle and directing the petitioner to produce the said vehicle, as and when required before the Court.
3. The learned counsel contended before this Court that the petitioner is a financier which financed money for the purchase of the said vehicle by one Mohammed Rahamathulla. He has not paid the regular -3- installments of the said vehicle. It appears that, he has sold the said vehicle in favour of one Manjunath and he also has not paid back the loan amount. On the other hand, one Revanasiddeshwara Traders have lodged a complaint against the said Manjunath for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The police, while investigating the said offence, have seized the aforesaid vehicle in Crime No.49/2010 and subjected the vehicle to PF. The petitioner being the financier made an application for interim custody of the said vehicle on the ground that petitioner is the RC owner and he is the proper custodian of the said vehicle. The Trial Court has infact released the said vehicle to the interim custody of the petitioner vide order dated 14.02.2011. However, it imposed a condition that the petitioner shall produce the above said vehicle as and when required by the Court. Subsequently, the petitioner made an application for relaxing the said condition and seeking permission to sell that vehicle. It is evident from the submission made by the learned counsel that though -4- the petitioner is a financier, the agreement entered into between the financier and said Mohammed Rahamathulla shows that petitioner is not supposed to ply the vehicle, as he is only a financier. Though the petitioner taken custody of the vehicle, he is not supposed to ply the vehicle and vehicle would be lying idle till disposal of the case. It would not help any of the person who are stakeholders in the case. Further he submitted that when the indemnity bond is executed, even if vehicle is sold for any reason, if the Court comes to the conclusion that the vehicle deserves to be confiscated, then the Court can recover the amount of the bond, from the person who has taken the vehicle for interim custody. Without considering these aspects of the matter, the Trial Court has rejected the application erroneously.
4. It is true that financier is the RC owner of the vehicle. However, he cannot ply the vehicle when hypothecation agreement is entered into between the financier and the person who has taken vehicle on loan -5- actually. Therefore, it goes without saying that the said vehicle is within the custody of the financier without there being any income from the said vehicle. If the said vehicle is parked open to the natural calamities or if it is not used, by the time of culmination of the proceeding, the vehicle may become useless. Therefore, Trial Court ought to have permitted the petitioner to sell the vehicle in public auction or Court itself could have taken that responsibility and sold the vehicle in auction.
5. However, as the complainant has lodged complaint under Sections 409 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and it is evident that the vehicle was given to Mohammed Rahamathulla by the financier. In my opinion those persons are stakeholders and the Trial Court should hear them while passing orders to sell the vehicle and deposit the amount before the Court or adjust the said amount towards loan. The Court is at liberty to pass appropriate orders in this regard. Under the above circumstances, it is appropriate to restore the -6- application filed under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by setting aside both the orders passed by the Trial Court as well as the Revision Court with a direction to the Trial Court to pass orders safeguarding the interest of all persons.
6. However, it is made clear that if the Court finds that the said vehicle is kept idle without plying the same and it becomes useless by the time of culminating of the proceedings, Court has to pass orders for selling of the vehicle. With these observations, petition is allowed. The matter is remitted to the Trial Court restoring the application under Section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the petitioner after hearing all the stakeholders in this regard.
Sd/-
JUDGE kcm