Bombay High Court
Sudaram Finance Ltd. Thr. Its Manager M. ... vs The State Of Mah. Thr. P.S.O., P.S. ... on 14 November, 2019
Author: M.G. Giratkar
Bench: Z.A.Haq, M.G.Giratkar
Judgment 1 wp533.10.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 533/2010
Sundaram Finance Limited,
A Company, incorporated under the
Indian Companies Act, having its Registered
Office at 21, Patullos Road, Chennai 699 002,
And a branch amongst other places at
Shri Mohini Complex, Kingsway Road,
Nagpur. Represented through is Manager
Shri M. Sathyamurthy Rajesh
.... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1] The State of Maharashtra,
Through the PSO, Police Station,
Karanja (G), Dist. Wardha
2] Police Inspector & Investigating
Officer, O/o. The Suptd of Police,
Wardha
3] Somraj S/o Sheshraoji Telkhede,
Aged about 48 years, Occ. Agriculturist
R/o. Plot No. 39, At & Post Karanja (G),
Tah. Karanja (Ghadge) Dist. Wardha
.... RESPONDENT(S)
___________________________________________________________________
None for the petitioner
Shri S.S. Doifode, APP for the respondent/State
Shri P.D. Meghe, Advocate for the respondent no. 3
___________________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ & M.G.GIRATKAR, JJ.
DATED : 14/11/2019
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER:- M.G. GIRATKAR, J.)
::: Uploaded on - 18/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2020 23:18:40 :::
Judgment 2 wp533.10.odt 1] None appears for the petitioner. Heard Shri S.S. Doifode,
learned APP for the State and Shri P.D. Meghe, Advocate for the respondent no. 3 - complainant.
2] The respondent no. 3 purchased vehicle (bearing no. MH-32 C/ 1690). He borrowed loan from the petitioner. Some amount of loan was repaid to the petitioner. The respondent no. 3 was to repay the balance amount of loan. The petitioner, without taking any legal recourse, forcibly took the vehicle from the possession of the respondent no. 3. The respondent no. 3 lodged a report in the Police Station Karanja. Offence punishable under Sections 395 and 294 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. The FIR was registered on 06/02/2008 as per the information received by the police on 03/08/2007. The Police Officer issued letter on 07/01/2010 and directed the petitioner to handover the vehicle for seizure in the crime. The petitioner informed the Police Officer that the said vehicle was sold to one Manoj Sarkar. On enquiry, the Police Officer / Police Inspector (Investigating Officer) P.S. Wardha came to know that the vehicle is in possession of the petitioner and Shri Manoj Sarkar was not in possession of the same, and therefore, the petitioner was directed to handover the said vehicle for the purpose of seizure in the crime.
3] Learned advocate for the respondent no. 3 is not aware about about the further proceedings in respect of Crime No. 54/2007 registered by ::: Uploaded on - 18/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2020 23:18:40 ::: Judgment 3 wp533.10.odt the Police Station Karanja. It is a cognizable offence. Police must have filed charge-sheet. Even if the charge-sheet is not filed, the parties can claim the vehicle before the Judicial Magistrate First Class as per the provisions of Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This Court cannot grant directions to the respondent nos. 1 and 2 not to seize the vehicle. Hence, the petition is without any merit. Accordingly, we dismiss the same with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
ANSARI
::: Uploaded on - 18/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2020 23:18:40 :::