AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Balakrishnan, J.—The fourth accused in C.C. No. 220/2004 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kannur, is the petitioner herein. Pursuant to a complaint filed by the 1st respondent, a crime was registered alleging offence u/s 392 of IPC.
An agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the first respondent with regard to a vehicle transaction as per which the first respondent, who is the purchaser of the vehicle, was to remit the amount in instalments. He committed default. As per the terms of the agreement the petitioner was authorised/empowered to take physical possession of the vehicle. Accordingly, when the 1st respondent defaulted to pay the instalments, the vehicle, which was the subject matter of the agreement, was taken possession. Alleging that the seizure of the vehicle was a dishonest removal of the property using force, complaint was filed alleging offence u/s 392 r/w 109 and 34 IPC.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the police officer, who filed the charge sheet, has not considered the effect of the terms of the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the 1st respondent with regard to the vehicle in question. As per the terms of the agreement the 1st respondent was to pay the amount in instalments. It was only as provided in the contract/agreement, the vehicle was taken possession by the petitioner.
In this connection the learned counsel has relied upon the decision of the apex Court in Sardar Trilok Singh and Others v. Satya Deo Tripathi 1979 SCC (CRI) 987 , K. A. Mathai alias Babu v. Kora Bibbikutty, (1996) 7 SCC 212 and Charanjit Singh Chadha and Others Vs. Sudhir Mehra, .
It is further pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a suit was filed by the petitioner for realising the amount before the Sub Court, Manjeri. Subsequently, the parties settled the matter in respect of which an agreement was entered into. Annexure A4 is the copy of that agreement. It is pointed out that one of the witnesses to the said agreement is an advocate appearing for one of the parties. Though as per the agreement the 1st respondent was bound to withdraw the complaint filed by him against the petitioner, he did not withdraw the same. The suit filed by the petitioner before the Sub Court, Manjeri, was not pressed by him. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the 1st respondent betrayed the petitioner by not withdrawing the Criminal prosecution.
It is submitted by the learned counsel that, since taking away of the vehicle was as per the terms of the agreement it cannot be said that it was a dishonest removal of the property. The further fact that the parties had entered into an agreement also is taken into account.
In the light of the decisions referred to earlier and in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is allowed. Further proceedings in C.C. No: 220/2004 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kannur, as against the petitioner herein, will stand quashed.