Karnataka High Court
Savithramma vs State Of Karnataka on 7 January, 2013
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5902/2012
BETWEEN:
Savithramma,
Aged about 46 years,
W/o. Mallikarjunaiah D.B.,
Residing at No.454, 4th Cross,
Muneshwaranagara,
Bagalagunte,
Bangalore North,
Bangalore District-560 002. ....Petitioner
[By Smt.Nalina .K., for
Sri.S.K.Venkata Reddy, Advocates]
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
By New Extension Police,
Tumkur-572 021.
2 M/s. Sriram Transport
Finance Co.Ltd.,
A Company registered under the
Indian Companies Act, having its
Registered office at 3rd Floor,
Mookambika Complex,
Lady Desikacharya Road,
Mylapura, Chennai and
Having its Branch Office at Bangalore
Represented by its Authorised Signatory,
And PA Holder- Kumaraswamy,
2
S/o Ningegowda,
Aged 39 years,
1st Floor, Shane Plaza,
No.1-84-6, Hosur Main Road,
Bangalore-560 030. ...Respondents
[By Sri.S.J.Alva, Advocate for R-2;
Sri.P.Karunakar, HCGP for R-1]
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the impugned order dated
27.08.2012 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track
Court-I, Tumkur in Crl.R.P.No.101/2011 and order dated
30.05.2011 passed on I.A.Nos.1 & 2 by the Additional Senior
Civil Judge and CJM., Tumkur in Crime No.34/2011.
This Criminal Petition coming for admission on this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
In this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner has questioned the legality and correctness of the order dated 27.08.2012 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-I, Tumkur, in Criminal Revision Petition No.101/2011 dismissing the said revision petition and affirming the order dated 30.05.2011 passed by the Additional CJM, Tumkur, in C.C. No.1218/2012, ordering release of the seized vehicle to the interim custody of the 2nd respondent herein.
3
2) The petitioner is stated to be the purchaser of the lorry bearing Registration No. KA.41-2298 from one V.D.Ravish, who was the original owner of the said vehicle.
3) According to the case of the prosecution, the said vehicle was purchased by V.D. Ravish, S/o. V.R. Dakshinamurthy by obtaining financial assistance from Respondent No.2 to the extent of Rs.3,00,000/- agreeing to repay the amount in 30 equal monthly instalments and the vehicle had been hypothecated in favour of the 2nd respondent. The hypothecation was duly notified in the registration certificate of the vehicle. However, later the said V.D. Ravish without discharging the entire liability due by him to respondent No.2, appears to have sold the vehicle and by producing the forged documents before the RTO the hypothecation endorsement in the Registration Certificate appears to have been got cancelled. On coming to know of this, the 2nd respondent filed a complaint before the jurisdictional police, based on which the case in Crime No.34/2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 468,420 r/w. 34 of IPC came to be registered against V.D. 4 Ravish, Sathish and Savithramma, the petitioner herein. During investigation, the vehicle was seized and produced before the jurisdictional Court. Thereafter, both the petitioner and Respondent No.2 filed applications under Section 451 r/w. 457 of Cr.P.C. seeking interim custody of the seized vehicle.
4) The learned Magistrate after hearing both sides, allowed the application filed by the 2nd respondent and dismissed the application filed by the petitioner and directed the interim custody of the vehicle in favour of Respondent No.2. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed revision petition before the Sessions Court at Tumkur, which came to be rejected. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has presented this petition.
5) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the orders impugned in this petition.
6) At this stage, there is no serious dispute that Sri. V.D. Ravish, who purchased the vehicle in question had availed financial assistance from the 2nd respondent and the 5 vehicle had been duly hypothecated in favour of the 2nd respondent. According to the allegations made in the complaint, the signature of authorized signatory of the 2nd respondent was forged and such forged documents appears to have been produced before the RTO for getting hypothecation endorsement cancelled, though the entire loan amount had not been discharged.
7) Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the 2nd respondent is the financier in respect of the vehicle in question, the Courts below are justified in directing the release of the vehicle to the interim custody of the 2nd respondent. There is no illegality committed by the courts below in rejecting the application of the petitioner. May be that this petitioner has purchased the vehicle from V.D. Ravish. However, as long as it is not established that the entire loan amount due to the 2nd respondent is discharged and the hypothecation endorsement in the registration certificate has been duly cancelled, prima facie the petitioner cannot be held to have derived any title over the vehicle. Therefore, the orders 6 passed by the courts below do not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE KGR*