Madras High Court
Muthoot Fincorp Limited vs The Inspector Of Police on 23 September, 2020
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.O.P.No.20659 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.09.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.O.P.No.20659 of 2015 and
Crl.M.P.No.1 of 2015
1.Muthoot Fincorp Limited
Rep. by its Branch Manager,
Senthilkumar,
No.28-A, Taj Complex, Dharapuram Road,
Udumalpet.
2.Muthoot Fincorp Limited,
Rep. by its Branch Manager,
Kalaivani,
100, N.S.G Samngash,
Palani Main Road,
Udumalpet. ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police,
B-14, Kuniamuthur Crime Police Station,
Coimbatore City.
(Crime No.478/2015)
2.Halimunisha Ahamed ... Respondents
[The 2nd respondent impleaded as per
order of this Court dated 09.10.2015
in Crl.M.P.No.2 of 2015 in
Crl.O.P.No.20659 of 2015.]
Page 1 of 12
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.No.20659 of 2015
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records on the file of the
respondent relating to the Summons dated 11.08.2015 issued to the 1st
petitioner and summon dated 11.08.2015 issued to the 2nd petitioner in
Crime No.478 of 2015 and quash the same on the file of the respondent
Police.
For Petitioner : Mr.Sai, Bharath & Ilan
For R1 : Mr.C.Iyyappa Raj,
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 : Mr.C.Deivasigamani
*****
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the summons dated 11.08.2015, issued by the 1st respondent to the petitioners in connection with Crime No.478 of 2015.
2.The petitioners, who are the Branch Managers of Muthoot Fincorp Limited, Udumelpet, were issued with summons dated 11.08.2015 by the 1st respondent in connection with Crime No.478 of 2015, to produce receipts bearing numbers F55168, F9316, F9255, F9280, F9382, F9451, F9427, F9333 and F9507.
Page 2 of 12 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.20659 of 2015
3.The gist of the case is that the petitioners' company is a Non Banking Financial Company carrying on business in accordance with law and they have 3700 branches across India. On 08.08.2015, the 2 nd respondent lodged a complaint to the 1st respondent that her relative one Adbul Waris Ahmed (Accused in Crime No.478 of 2015) came to her house on 21.04.2015 and informed that there is necromancy in her house, if it is not removed, it would harm to her children and proposed bridegroom of her younger daughter and their daughter life is in danger, for which, some rituals to be performed. The said Abdul Waris Ahmed further informed that he knows black magic and he would perform rituals alone in the bed room available in ground floor in the 2 nd respondent's house. Thereafter, the room was kept in his exclusive possession and weekly once, he used to come and do rituals and lock the room and kept the room key with him. Since the second daughter's marriages was scheduled to be held on 02.08.2015, the jewels were needed, which was kept inside that bed room in Bureau. On 01.08.2015, the accused was contacted for key, he stated that the key was available there, the 2nd respondent opened the room, searched for bureau key, which was found missing. The 2nd respondent broke open the bureau and found 70 Page 3 of 12 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.20659 of 2015 sovereigns of gold jewels were in the locker were stolen. After performing the marriage on 08.08.2015, the 2nd respondent lodged a complaint to the 1st respondent. During investigation, the accused was arrested and he confessed about the commission of offence. Hence, the 1st respondent Police registered an FIR in Crime No.478 of 2015, for offence under Sections 380 IPC. Pursuant to the confession, it was found that 21 items of jewels were pledged at various places viz., Muthoot Mini Finance, Muthoot Finance, Manapuram Finance and UAE Exchange, Coimbatore and also found the accused pledged the stolen jewels in Muthoot Fincorp Limited, Udumalpet/the petitioners herein. In course of investigation, notices were sent to the petitioners to produce the bills in respect of the jewels involved in Crime No.478 of 2015, against which, the present quash petitions.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner/Muthoot Fincorop Finance Limited is a Non-Banking Financial Company carrying on business under valid registration certificate issued by the Reserve Bank of India and they have 3,700 branches across India. The learned counsel further submitted that the Page 4 of 12 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.20659 of 2015 accused Abdul Waris Ahmed on nine occasions pledged jewels around 169 grams, for value of Rs.3,10,500/-. Of the pledged jewels, two loans were closed and jewels retrieved. On 10.08.2015, the 1st respondent, in connection with Crime No.478 of 2015, came to the petitioners' office, informed that the jewels pledged by the accused are stolen property in respect of Crime No.478 of 2015. On 11.08.2015, the impugned summons were served to the petitioners.
5.The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is a Non Banking Financial Company and they are legally entitled to advance loan against security of gold ornaments pledged by the pawner. Further, the pledge is governed by the provisions of Indian Contract Act. As per Section 173 of the Act, the pawnee is conferred with a right to retain the pledged articles till the pawner repays the loan amount and as per Section 176 of the Act, the pawnee has the right to sell the pledged articles if the pawner makes default in payment of the loan within the stipulated time. Even in cases, where pledge is made by a person in possession under a voidable contract, as per Section 178-A of the Act, the pawnee acquires good title to the pledged articles, provided, it acts in good faith and Page 5 of 12 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.20659 of 2015 without notice of the pawner's defective title. In this case, the theft is on 02.08.2015, whereas the pledges have been made during the months of April and May 2015. Thus, the complaint of the 2 nd respondent seems to be concocted and highly imaginary. No person would have kept the jewels of such quantum in a room and allowed another person to exclusively use the room and that to under lock and key. The claim of the 2nd respondent that the alleged theft came to light during during the month of August 2015 is not acceptable. The claim of the 2nd respondent is false, the 2nd respondent and the accused are relatives, who are acting in collusion to destroy the petitioners' right over the jewels.
6.The petitioners' company had earlier come across such a false complaints lodged by the pawners in collusion with their relatives and thereby, without paying dues to the petitioner, they retrieve the jewels. Thus, the petitioners, herein, suspect such collusion between the accused and the 2nd respondent and oppose the issuance of summons and requested this Court, to safeguard the right and interest of the petitioners. The petitioners gave loan of Rs.3,10,500/- on the disputed jewels. Page 6 of 12 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.20659 of 2015
7.The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that as per Section 10-B of the Tamil Nadu Pawnbrokers Act, 1943, a Inspector is appointed under the Act and they are empowered to inspect such places and verify books of accounts, records, files and documents and also to file a report. The learned counsel further submitted that the 1 st respondent Police are the statutory authority to investigate the offence of such crime. In this case, on receipt of the complaint from the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent, on enquiry, registered a case in Crime No.478 of 2015, arrested the accused and recorded his confession. In his confession, admits his involvement in the crime and pleding the jewels of the 2nd respondent with the petitioners. Thus, the petitioners are duty bound to verify the genuineness and claim of the pawner.
8.It is admitted by the petitioners that within a short period between April and May 2015 such large quantum of jewels were pledged, which causes suspicion. The petitioners did not follow the provisions of law and knowingly received the stolen jewels. In this case, only summons, as per law, were sent to the petitioners. The petitioners without obeying the summons, approached this Court by way of Page 7 of 12 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.20659 of 2015 quashing the said summons, which would go to show that there is something to hold back hampering the investigation. Hence, the claim of the petitioners to be ascertained during investigation. The petitioners, if at all, have any objection, in handing over the custody of jewels, they can approach the concerned Court making objections and seek remedy in accordance with law.
9.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that on the complaint of the 2nd respondent, an FIR in Crime No.478 of 2015 was registered. During investigation, the accused was arrested by the 1st respondent, the stolen jewels were discovered based on the confession of the accused. He further submitted that the accused identified the petitioners branch, where he pledged the jewels of the 2nd respondent. On 10.08.2015, the 1st respondent Police had gone to the petitioners office and enquired about the jewels, pledged with the petitioners and also verified the bills of the disputed jewels. During enquiry, the petitioners admitted that the jewels were pledged by the accused in their branch and sought time to get permission from head office to produce the documents in respect of the disputed jewels. In the Page 8 of 12 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.20659 of 2015 meanwhile, the summons dated 11.08.2015 were issued to them. On receipt of the same, they approached this Court by way of filing the above quash petition to quash the summons.
10.It is further submitted that the petitioners, sofar, not produced any records or jewels. In this case, totally 465 grams of jewels are involved, of which 298 grams of jewels recovered from Muthoot Mini Finance, Muthoot Finance, Manapuram Finance and UAE Exchange, Coimbatore. As far as the petitioners are concerned, they are in possession of 169 grams of jewels, which they failed to produce. Due to the non-cooperation and non production of the articles, the investigation, in this case, could not be progressed and completed.
11.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that on admission of the petitioners, it is seen that the entire jewels were pledged during the month of April and May 2015. Within a short span huge quantity of gold jewels were pledged, which normally create suspicion. As per Section 17(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Pawnbrokers Act, 1943, if any article is in possession of the pawnee, which is stolen Page 9 of 12 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.20659 of 2015 property, the pawner, forthwith, to communicate the particulars and to deliver the articles to the Police. In this case, the jewels are stolen by the accused is not in dispute. The petitioners, immediately, on receipt of the notice, approached this Court and thereby, stalled the investigation. Thus, the petitioners can file appropriate petition before the concerned Court seeking return of property, if he so desires.
12.This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.
13.It is seen that the accused was arrested by the 1st respondent Police, the accused gave confession. In his confession, he disclosed about the pledging of jewels with the petitioners, which were stolen by him from the house of the 2nd respondent. The accused gave the bill particulars of the jewels, which were pledged with the petitioners and the bill particulars. Thereafter, the 1st respondent Police issued summons on 11.08.2015 as per law. The petitioners are duty bound to produce the book of account, records, files and documents, which are necessary for investigation. Once it is proved that the jewels are stolen, the same are to Page 10 of 12 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.20659 of 2015 be delivered to the police, if it is required.
14.In view of the same, the petitioners cannot raise any objection for issuance of summons and production of books and jewels. If the petitioners are aggrieved and feel that they have right over the properties, they can approach the concerned Court, to safeguard and secure their rights by filing appropriate petition. If the petitioners or any other person filed a petition seeking interim custody of the jewels, the concerned Court to issue notice to them and after enquiry to pass appropriate orders.
15.With the above observation, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. In view of the long pendency of FIR, the 1 st respondent Police is to file a charge sheet within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the concerned Court. The concerned Court is to conclude the trial within a period of three months from the date of filing of charge sheet. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
23.09.2020 vv2 Page 11 of 12 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.20659 of 2015 M.NIRMAL KUMAR., J.
vv2 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No To
1.The Inspector of Police, B-14, Kuniamuthur Crime Police Station, Coimbatore City.
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Crl.O.P.No.20659 of 2015
23.09.2020 Page 12 of 12 http://www.judis.nic.in