AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H.P. Sandesh, J
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to quash the entire proceedings in Crime No.326/2020 for the offences
punishable under Sections 504, 506, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC.
The factual matrix of the case is that respondent No.2 had lodged the complaint with respondent No.1 making the allegation that he had purchased
a JCB and he is paying EMI of Rs.52,230/- to the accused Company. The informant had financial problem in June 2019 and December 2019 and EMI
amount was not paid. It is alleged that on 23.01.2020 at about 4.30 p.m. when the informant concluded his work at Doddanakatte Village at the land
belonging to Manjanna and returning, near Doddanakatte Forest, Vittalapura Road, the Manager of the Srei Finance by name Sri Subhash, broker of
Pandavapura, namely Vinay and Vinod from Mysore came with rowdy elements. It is allegedly stated by them that two months EMI was not paid by
the complainant and therefore they are taking away the JCB. It is alleged that the accused took away the JCB by threatening the informant. It is
alleged that Subhash told the informant that if Rs.3,06,000/- is paid, the vehicle will be released. It is alleged that on 05.03.2020, the amount of
Rs.3,06,000/- was paid and inspite of that, the vehicle was not released. It is also the allegation that charges towards the shed was to be paid. Since
the informant had financial problem on 11.03.2020 another sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid on 22.05.2020. A sum of Rs.1,41,000/- was also paid. Despite
the same, the vehicle was not released. That on 17.06.2020, the informant and residents of Doddanakatte village went to Bengaluru office and came
to know that JCB had already been auctioned and sold. It is also an allegation that they have abused in a foul language and threatened the
complainant. Based on the complaint, the police have registered the case.
The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that for non-payment of EMI in respect of JCB which was leased out, action was taken. In
terms of the lease agreement, there is provision under clause 13.3 that in case of default, they can re-possess the vehicle and accordingly possession
was taken and vehicle was sold and surplus amount was paid to the account of the complainant/respondent No.2. The same has been reversed back.
The learned counsel would contend that action was taken in terms of the agreement entered into between the parties dated 15.08.2018 and no criminal
prosecution can be lodged when the action was taken in accordance with the terms of the agreement and it is nothing but an abuse of process.
The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 State would contend that the complaint averment discloses the
committing of cognizable offence i.e., causing life threat and also abusing and an allegation of cheating is made in the complaint. Hence, the matter
requires to be investigated.
Though this Court had issued notice against respondent No.2, respondent No.2 did not choose to appear before the Court.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and also on
perusal of the document, particularly Annexure-C lease agreement dated 15.08.2018, under clause 13.3 the rights are given to the petitioners herein
that in case of default, action can be initiated against the complainant. It is also not in dispute that default was committed by the complainant and
action was taken and vehicle was seized and sold. If any grievances, respondent No.2 can agitate the same in accordance with law. Instead of that,
when the recovery proceedings is initiated against him, a criminal complaint is lodged and gave the criminal color to civil dispute between the parties.
If there were any violation of terms and conditions of the agreement dated 15.08.2018, the complainant could have initiated the proceedings against
the petitioners instead of invoking the criminal prosecution against the petitioners, that too making an allegation that he was subjected to abuse and
threat. Hence, it is nothing but an abuse of process and initiating the proceedings against the petitioners and if the same is not interfered by exercising
the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., it leads to miscarriage of justice.
In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed.
(ii) The proceedings initiated against the petitioners herein in Crime No.326/2020 is hereby quashed.