IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 15.02.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM CRL.O.P.Nos.10468 of 2005 and 10856 of 2006 and M.P.Nos.3768 of 2005 and 2810 of 2006 CRL.O.P.No.10468 of 2005: 1.B.Prince Robert 2.S.Bernard 3.S.Lawrance Prasad 4.B.Rita Bernard ...Petitioners -Vs- M/s.Shree Finance represented by its Prop: Mr.A.Rikhab Chand Jain ...Respondent Crl.O.P.No.10856 of 2006: A.Bharudeen ...Petitioner -Vs- M/s.Narendra Finance represented by its Prop: Mr.Narendra Mehta ...Respondent Prayer: Crl.O.P.No.10468 of 2005 Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records in C.C.No.9525 of 2005 on the file of the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai and quash the same. Crl.O.P.No.10856 of 2006 Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records in C.C.No.11104 of 2005 on the file of the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town, Chennai and quash the same. Crl.O.P.No.10468/2005 For Petitioners : Mr.P.V.Ravichandran For Respondent : Mr.T.I.Ramanathan Crl.O.P.No.10856/2006 For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vijayan For Respondent : No appearance ***** O R D E R
Crl.O.P.No.10468 of 2005:
The petitioners who are the accused in C.C.No.9525 of 2005 on the file of the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai and who are facing prosecution for alleged offence under Sections 406, 418, 420 r/w 34 IPC have approached this Court to quash proceedings pending against them 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.TN-43Z-1053 under a hire purchase agreement. The respondent and the 1st accused had entered into a hire purchase agreement which stipulated the repayment of the funds advanced by the respondent/complainant in 24 monthly installments. The accused 2 to 4 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.1,47,500/- and a balance amount of Rs.69,700/- 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 all the accused 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, while on the other, it states that the accused were trying to sell the vehicle to a third party without the knowledge of the complainant by fabricating and creating false documents. On these averments, offences under Sections 406, 418, 420 r/w 34 IPC stand alleged.
3.Heard the learned counsel on either side.
4.A perusal of the complaint makes it absolutely clear that the dues owing from the 1st accused as borrower and accused 2 to 4 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 sell the vehicle. This Court is of the firm view that the respondent/complainant has in preferring the complaint abused the process of Court.
5.Hence, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the proceedings in C.C.No.9525 of 2005 on the file of the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai shall stand quashed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
CRL.O.P.No.10856 of 2006:
The petitioner is the 1st accused in case pending in C.C.No.11104 of 2005 on the file of the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town, Chennai. This again is a case relating the outstanding dues under a hire purchase agreement and payable by the petitioner as borrower and one other as guarantor.
2.The complaint averments are the very same as those found in C.C.No.9525 of 2005 on the file of the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai which is the subject matter in Crl.O.P.No.10468 of 2005, the merits whereof stands discussed in the said Criminal Original Petition.
3.The same rational applies also in this case and hence, the Criminal Original Petition shall stand allowed. Accordingly, the proceedings in C.C.No.11104 of 2005 on the file of the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town, Chennai shall stand quashed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
4.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 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.
gm
To
The III Metropolitan Magistrate,
George Town,
Chennai