Karnataka High Court
M/S Tata Motors Finance Ltd vs The State By Regional Transport Officer ... on 20 July, 2015
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
Bench: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JULY, 2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.VENUGOPALA GOWDA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6708/2012
BETWEEN:
M/s. TATA MOTORS FINANCE LTD.,
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS TML FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,).
GROUND FLOOR, VINAYAKA COMPLEX,
BESIDE DEEPAK PETROL BUNK,
B.H.ROAD, SHIMOGA-577 201,
REP. BY ITS AREA MANAGER AND AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE Mr. MALLIKARJUN HADAGALI
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI V. SURESH, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE BY REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER &
MOTOR VEHICLE TAXATION AUTHORITY,
CHITRADURGA.
2. SRI VENKATESHA N.,
AGED MAJOR,
S/O SRI NARAYANA,
#3, KANIVEHALLI, HOLALKERE,
CHITRADURGA-577 501.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI CHETAN DESAI, HCGP FOR R1
SRI K.N. LINGARAJU ADV. FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER S.482 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDIGS IN
2
C.C.NO.775/2011 WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC AT CHITRADURGA VIDE
ANNEXURES-A & A1.
THIS CRL.P. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is a private non-banking finance company. Respondent No.2 availed loan from the petitioner for the purpose of purchase of a motor vehicle, stage carriage bearing registration No.KA-16 C-9111. Respondent No.2 having not remitted the motor vehicle tax for the period commencing from 01.01.2009 to 31.03.2010, amounting to Rs.1,63,680/-, despite the demand notice issued by respondent No.1, a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. was filed before the JMFC - II Court, Chitradurga against the petitioner. Therein, the petitioner is being prosecuted alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 12(1) of Karnataka Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1957. Learned Magistrate having taken cognizance of the offence and issued process on 08.06.2011, this petition was filed seeking quashing of the 3 entire proceedings of C.C.No.775/2011, pending on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chitradurga.
2. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the present petition being identical to Crl.P.Nos.3273/2013 c/w 3274/2013 decided on 17.04.2015 and the petitioner having not had the possession or control of the matter vehicle bearing No.KA- 16 C-9111 i.e., during the period 01.01.2009 to 31.03.2010, there is abuse of process of law by respondent No.1 in instituting the complaint/criminal case in question. Learned counsel submitted that instead of proceeding against the registered owner of the vehicle - 2nd respondent, the petitioner was targeted illegally.
3. Sri K.N. Lingaraju, learned advocate appearing for respondent No.2 - registered owner of the motor vehicle bearing registration No.KA-16 C-9111, conceded that during the period commencing from 01.01.2009 to 31.03.2010, the vehicle had remained in possession of the registered owner and that the petitioner was not in 4 possession or control of the hypothecated vehicle. Learned counsel submitted that the tax of the motor vehicle for the said period has not been paid by the 2nd respondent.
4. Sri Chetan Desai, learned HCGP was unable to place on record or show from the complaint dated 06.09.2010 filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the possession or control of the vehicle being with the petitioner for the period from 01.01.2009 to 31.03.2010.
5. Perused the record and considered the rival contentions.
6. The order passed by the learned Magistrate on 08.06.2011 suffers from the same legal infirmity as was pointed out in Crl.P.Nos.3273/2013 c/w 3274/2013, decided on 17.04.2015. The complaint is in stereotype and printed form, so also the order dated 08.06.2011 of the Magistrate. Lack of application of mind while taking 5 cognizance of the offence and issuing of process is apparent.
7. There being no dispute that the vehicle in question had remained with the registered owner from 01.01.2009 to 31.03.2010 and that the petitioner did not had the possession or control of the hypothecated vehicle during the relevant period, first respondent has abused the process of law in instituting the complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. on 06.09.2010. Learned Magistrate having mechanically taken cognizance and registered C.C.No.775/2011, has issued the process.
8. Since the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for the offence under Section 12(1) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, on account of the undisputed facts, noticed supra, in that, it had neither possession nor control of the vehicle for the period in question, there cannot be any criminal proceeding by the first respondent against the petitioner, particularly under Section 12(1) of the Act. 6
In the result, petition is allowed and the entire proceedings of C.C.No.775/2011, on the file of the JMFC II Court, Chitradurga is quashed. However, this order would not stand in the way of the first respondent proceeding against the 2nd respondent for recovery of the tax for the period commencing from 01.01.2009 to 31.03.2010 i.e., in respect of the motor vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-16 C-9111.
The amount deposited pursuant to the order passed on 08.11.2012 be refunded to the petitioner.
Sd/-
JUDGE ca