IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 05.03.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM CRL.O.P.No.27139 of 2006 and M.P.No.1 of 2006 K.Kumara ...Petitioner -Vs- M/s.Shruthi Finance Prop. V.Padam Chand ...Respondent Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records and quash all further proceedings in C.C.No.9632 of 2006 on the file of the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town, Chennai. For Petitioner : No appearance For Respondent : No appearance ***** O R D E R
The petitioner, who is the 1st accused in C.C.No.9632 of 2006 on the file of the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai and who is facing prosecution for alleged offence under Sections 406, 418, 420 r/w 34 IPC has approached this Court to quash proceedings pending against him in the said case.
2.The respondent herein has preferred a complaint informing that the 1st accused approached him and induced him to finance the purchase of a vehicle bearing Registration No.KL-13A-2842 under a hire purchase agreement. The respondent/complainant and the 1st accused had entered into a hire purchase agreement which stipulated the repayment of the funds advanced by the respondent/complainant in 30 monthly installments. The 2nd accused had guaranteed the repayment by the 1st accused under such agreement. The 1st accused has under the agreement effected payment of a sum of Rs.10,000/- and a balance amount of Rs.1,30,000/- was due to the respondent/complainant. Upon the failure of the 1st accused to repay the balance amount, the respondent/complainant has preferred the complaint stating that accused 1 and 2 were liable to effect repayment and the accused neither made the payment nor surrendered the vehicle in keeping with the hire purchase agreement. On the one hand, the complaint states that the accused had sold the vehicle to a third party and the same has been dismantled and sold as scrap by fabricating and creating false documents, while on the other, it states that the accused were trying to alter and destroy the vehicle without the knowledge of the respondent/complainant. On these averments, offences under Sections 406, 418, 420 r/w 34 IPC stand alleged.
3.A perusal of the complaint makes it absolutely clear that the dues owing from the 1st accused as borrower and 2nd accused as guarantor under the hire purchase agreement is nothing more than a civil liability. It is also clear that merely towards imputing criminal conduct of the accused, certain allegations stand made, which themselves are quite contradictory viz., on the one hand, the complainant alleges that the accused had sold the vehicle and on the other, it states that the accused are trying to alter and destroy the vehicle. This Court is of the firm view that the respondent/complainant has in preferring the complaint abused the process of Court.
4.Hence, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the proceedings in C.C.No.9632 of 2006 on the file of the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai shall stand quashed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
5.Though the guarantor, 2nd accused, is now not before this Court, still, when this Court finds that the complaint case itself is an abuse of process of
C.T.SELVAM, J.
gm
Court, this Court would quash the entire proceedings in the said case and hence, the same shall stand quashed also in respect of the 2nd accused.
05.03.2010
Index:yes/no
Internet:yes/no
gm
To
The III Metropolitan Magistrate,
George Town, Chennai
CRL.O.P.No.27139 of 2006
and
M.P.No.1 of 2006