High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Satya Kumar Thakur @ S.K.Thakur … vs State Of Bihar &Amp; Anr on 1 December, 2010

Patna High Court – Orders
Satya Kumar Thakur @ S.K.Thakur … vs State Of Bihar &Amp; Anr on 1 December, 2010
               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              Cr. Misc. No.7459 of 2010
          1. SATYA KUMAR THAKUR @ S.K.THAKUR son of Sri Jay Mohan Thakur,
             Branch Manager, Shankar Motors Pvt. Ltd., Purnea, Police Station and
             District- Purnea &
          2. Mohan Himatsingka son of Late Ram Jiwan Himatsingka, Director, Shanker
             Motors Pvt. Ltd. Authorized Dealer of Tata Commercial Vehicle , Purnea,
             Police Station ad District- Purnea.                    ....Petitioners

                                          Versus

          1. THE STATE OF BIHAR &
          2. Sanjay Rishi son of Jagdish Rishi, Resident of village- Sadanpur Kala, Police
             Station- Korha, District- Katihar                          ...Opposite Parties
                                        -----------

3/ 01.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the opposite

party no.2.

The petitioners seek quashing of the order dated

17.12.2009 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar, in

Korha (Rautara) P.S. case no.178 of 2008, by which he has taken

cognizance under sections 420, 406 Indian Penal Code and section

3(1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention

of Atrocities) Act.

The background of the case is that the complainant was

disbursed loan for purchase of vehicle which was supplied to him at

the end of the petitioners, who were dealers of the vehicles.

Thereafter, the vehicle was repossessed. The complainant alleges

that the petitioners had also hand in it.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the

vehicle had been given to the complainant in pursuance to the

disbursal of the loan from the financer, there was no occasion for

any grievance of the petitioners with the complainant and, therefore,

the whole story of the vehicle having been repossessed by them is
-2-

completely absurd.

I am inclined to accept the submissions advanced on

behalf of the petitioner since in the procedure by which the loan is

disbursed and a vehicle is handed over to the loanee by the dealer,

the dealer has no role to play in the dispute between the financer and

the loanee about the payment/nonpayment of loan.

In view of such, this application is allowed and the order

dated 17.12.2009 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar, in

Korha (Rautara) P.S. case no.178 of 2008 is hereby quashed in so far

as it relates to the petitioners only.

Application stands allowed.

JA/-                                            (Anjana Prakash, J.)