Gopinath Rao Miraskar vs The Commissioner of Police and Inspector of Police Subramanya Nagar Police Station

A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of mandamus to the respondents to take cognizance of the offence said to have been committed by the persons as indicated in the complaint given by the petitioner to the second respondent on 08.01.2013. The case of the petitioner is that he had purchased a TATA SUMO vehicle bearing No. KA-04 MA 3204 after availing finance from the Tata Finance Limited. In respect of the said transaction since there were certain disputes between the petitioner and the said Tata Finance Limited, the petitioner had filed a suit in O.S. No. 2324/2002 seeking injunction against the respondents from seizing the vehicle. The Court below after considering the rival contentions has decreed the suit by its judgment dated 01.07.2006. The petitioner thereafter is stated to have been in possession of the said vehicle. When that was the position, the petitioner had been intimidated and the vehicle has been taken away from him on 08.01.2013 by certain unruly elements. In that regard, the petitioner is stated to have made complaint to the second respondent. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner has been issued with the endorsement dated 21.03.2013. The petitioner is therefore before this Court claiming to be aggrieved by the said endorsement.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the respondents were not justified in issuing such endorsement without registering a FIR and conducting investigation in the matter. It is his case that the finance obtained by the petitioner is from Tata Finance Limited and presently, by the objection statement filed by the respondents to the instant petition it has been indicated that the vehicle has been seized by the Kotak Mahindra Prime Company. It is his case that he has no transaction whatsoever with the said Company and therefore, the possession of the vehicle could not have been taken by the said company which would amount to theft, which is a cognizable offence. Therefore, the respondents should have registered the case and the investigation should have been completed. Hence, it is contended that the respondents are not justified.

Learned Government Advocate would however refer to the objection statement filed herein to indicate that on preliminary investigation based on the complaint of the petitioner, the said Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited have produced the documents to the Police to indicate that a Deed of Assignment has been executed by the Tata Finance Limited. Therefore, the allegation as made by the petitioner that it is a cognizable offence could not have been looked into by the respondents. As such, the endorsement issued is justified. In the light of the above, though the impugned endorsement does not disclose sufficient reasons for the conclusion reached by the respondents, certainly, in a matter of the present nature, the explanation put forth through the objection statement and the documents made available to this Court at the time of hearing of the petition by the learned Government Advocate in justification of the endorsement would be relevant to be looked into. In this regard, the copy of Deed of Assignment dated 19.05.2006 between the Tata Finance Limited and Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited is produced. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he has nothing to do with Tata Motors and also he has no notice whatsoever and the entries in the Registration Certificate of the vehicle to that effect had not been made and therefore, the said Mahindra Prime Limited would not have the authority to take possession of the said vehicle, these are aspects which could be urged by the petitioner in an appropriate proceedings, if it is initiated in accordance with law. At this juncture, to consider as to whether the respondents were justified in not registering a criminal case, certainly, I am of the opinion that the said document itself which had been secured by the second respondent would indicate that the allegation made as if the vehicle had been stolen cannot be accepted in the present facts of the case. If at all the vehicle has been wrongly seized contrary to the hire purchase transaction such other remedy as per law should be availed.

Therefore, reserving liberty to the respondents to take appropriate action in accordance with law, the instant petition stands disposed of.