IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 503 of 2010()
1. MR. K.Y. SADIK MOHAMMED,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SABU AUGUSTIAN, THE MANAGER, RETAIL
... Respondent
2. SUJITH PRAKASH, ASSETS COLLECTION, HDFC
3. MR. RAVI RAO, THE MANAGER, RETAIL
4. MR. RAJA GOPAL RANGANATH,
5. MR. DHARAN DESAI,
6. ADITHYAPURI, MANAGING DIRECTOR,
7. STATE OF KERALA,REP. BY PUBLIC
For Petitioner :SRI.C.K.SREEJITH
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN
Dated :17/06/2010
O R D E R
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
-----------------------------
Crl.R.P.No.503 of 2010
---------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of June 2010
O R D E R
Against the rejection of a private complaint, the
complainant preferred this revision petition.
2. The case of the complainant is that he had
purchased 6 goods carriage vehicles on 30.11.2006 through
an auction sale conducted by accused Nos.1 and 2, the
Manager and Assistant Collection Officer, HDFC Bank,
Palarivattom. The other accused/respondents are the
officials of the said bank on various capacities. According
to the complainant, originally these vehicles were belonged
to one P.P.Johnson and the vehicles were repossessed by
the respondents/accused on the default of the repayment of
the financial assistance given by the said bank to the said
person. It is the further case of the complainant that, the
Crl.R.P.No.503 of 2010
: 2 :
above vehicles with original R.C.Book were in the name of
said P.P.Johnson and according to the complaint the
accused person states that the original R.C.Book were
surrendered by the R.C.owner and according to the
complainant he purchased the vehicles on payment of
Rs.25,68,000/- believing the assurance of the accused that
there is no issue with the vehicles and he will get the
clearance from the concerned authorities. But according to
the complainant when he applied for NOC, for transfer of
the vehicles, before the Joint R.T.O, he refused to give NOC
on the ground that there is a criminal case pending against
the said Johnson, the original R.C.owner of the vehicles.
According to the complainant, against the above reply from
the R.T.O authorities, he approached this Court by filing
W.P.(C) No.27465/2007 seeking a direction to declare that
the vehicles are not involved in any case and for further
direction to the CBI, directing them to clarify that the
vehicles need not be produced before any court below, since
Crl.R.P.No.503 of 2010
: 3 :
the vehicles are not involved in any other crime.
Admittedly, the complainant purchased the above vehicles
as a dealer of used vehicles and he has no business of
operating the vehicles. The grievance of the complainant is
that after the purchase of the vehicles on 30.11.2006 he
could not use the vehicles or sale the same.
3. Upon the complaint preferred by the revision
petitioner/complainant, he himself was examined as CW1.
On the basis of the deposition of the CW1, the complainant
and the materials produced by him, the learned Magistrate
came into a conclusion that actually the dispute is civil in
nature and no criminal liability can be fixed on the
respondents in connection with the purchase of the vehicles
and thus, the complaint was rejected under Sec.204.
4. The learned counsel submitted that the
accused/respondents did not inform the complainant that
the original owner of the vehicles has already been involved
in criminal case and therefore, the charge against the
Crl.R.P.No.503 of 2010
: 4 :
accused under Sections 408, 420, 120B r/w 34 of I.P.C. will
lie.
5. I have carefully considered the arguments
advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also
perused the order impugned. From the facts which
elaborately narrated in the impugned order, it can be seen
that the complainant voluntarily involved in an auction sale
procedure with respect to the sales of the vehicles which
were repossessed by the respondents, who are the financial
agency and who extended financial assistance to the
original owner of the vehicles and the vehicles were
repossessed due to the failure on the part of the loanee/hire
purchaser. According to the complainant he has no case
that the accused have persuaded the complainant to
participate in the auction or they have suppressed any
material facts from the notice of the complainant with
respect to the vehicles in question. Now the case of the
complainant is that the accused/respondents did not
Crl.R.P.No.503 of 2010
: 5 :
disclose to him that the R.C. owner of the vehicles involved
in criminal cases. When the vehicles put in auction sale
normally what expected to disclose is the details with
respect to those vehicles and the auctioneer/the seller, not
bound to disclose the details of the original owner of the
vehicles and his antecedents and back history. It is also
relevant to note that the above reasoning seems to be
approved and accepted by the complainant by his prayer
and averments in the writ petition filed before this Court.
As correctly pointed out by the learned Magistrate what
sought in the writ petition was for a declaration that the
vehicles are not involved in any case and the further
direction sought was that the CBI be directed to clarify that
the vehicles need not be produced before any court of law
since the vehicles are not involved in any crime. Thus, it is
crystal clear that the vehicles which purchased by the
complainant from the respondents/accused, even according
to the complainant, are not involved in any crime. The
Crl.R.P.No.503 of 2010
: 6 :
learned Magistrate while rejecting the complaint has
categorically observed that it cannot be imagine that the
accused were aware, when the auction sale was conducted
on 30.11.2006 and when the vehicles thus sold to the
complainant that a criminal case was pending against
P.P.Johnson, the original owner of the vehicles and Joint
R.T.O would refuse to issue NOC on the ground that a
criminal case was pending against the original R.C.owner.
Therefore, I find no illegality or irregularity on the finding of
the learned Magistrate that absolutely there is no materials
to show that the accused had dishonest or fraudulent
intention to cheat the complainant or dishonestly or
fraudulently induced the complainant to purchase the above
vehicles in an auction sale conducted on 30.11.2006. It is
also pertinent to note that the vehicles in question sold in a
public auction and for that sole reason it cannot be hold for
a moment that accused maintain an intention to cheat the
complainant.
Crl.R.P.No.503 of 2010
: 7 :
In the light of the above facts and circumstances,
I am of the view that the learned Magistrate is perfectly
legal in rejecting the complaint and accordingly this
revision petition is devoid of any merit and the same is
dismissed accordingly.
V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE.
Jvt