Patna High Court - Orders
Branch Manager, Mahindra & Mahindra ... vs The State Of Bihar & Anr. on 27 March, 2012
Author: Jyoti Saran
Bench: Jyoti Saran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.12686 of 2012
======================================================
Branch Manager, Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. Sunil
Singh S/O Anirudh Singh Plot No.-6, Beside Cimage, S.K. Puri, Boring
Road, Patna-13
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Jitendra Kumar S/O Gaurishankar Rai 113, Sherpur, P.O. And P.S.-
Maner, District- Patna.
.... .... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Birendra Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Md. Ataur Rahma, A.P.P.
=====================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN
ORAL ORDER
02. 27-03-2012Heard Mr. Birendra Kumar Sinha, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Md. Ataur Rahman, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
This application is directed against the order dated 17.01.2012 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danapur in a case arising from Complaint Case No. 1152( C ) of 2011, whereby the learned Magistrate has been pleased to take cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 323/34 of the Indian penal Code.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, with reference to the allegation set out in the Complaint placed at Annexure-1 of the application, submits that the allegation if any, at best can be termed as a civil breach. He further submits that even if the complaint is taken on its face value no offence can be made out against the petitioner who is a financial company and that it is not in contest that following the loan extended by the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12686 of 2012 (2) dt.27-03-2012 2 petitioner, the complainant did obtain the delivery of Mahindra Tractor in question. Learned counsel submits that perusal of Clause 7.1 of the loan agreement in no uncertain terms requires the petitioner to deposit the registration book of the tractor containing the endorsement of hypothecation of the product in favour of the lending company which the complainant failed to do as he did not obtain any registration certificate following which the vehicle in question perhaps was taken into custody and as a consequence whereof the blame is now being put on the lending company when no such agreement had been entered in between the parties that the Financing Company had to provide the complainant with the registration book. It is submitted that the complainant himself has admitted in paragraph-10 of the complaint that an amount of Rs. 38,000/- is due to the petitioner-company and which the complainant has failed to deposit on pretext of failure by the financing company to provide him with the tractor registration certificate. It is submitted that none of the Clause of the loan agreement placed at Annexure-3 of the application obliges the financing company to provide the complainant with any registration certificate and even if according to the complainant there has been any breach of promise, the remedy for the same lies before a civil court of competent jurisdiction and that the institution of the criminal case in question is an abuse of process of the court.
Issue notice to opposite party no. 2 for which requisites under ordinary process as well as registered cover with A/D must be filed within one week, failing which this application as against the concerned opposite party shall stand rejected without further reference to the bench.
Put up after service of notice.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12686 of 2012 (2) dt.27-03-20123
In the meantime, further proceedings in Complaint Case No. 1152 ( C ) of 2011, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danapur shall remain stayed.
(Jyoti Saran, J) S.Sb/-