The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to discourage strong-arm tactics by recovery agents and the importance of following legal procedures for recovery, as well as the enforcement of arbitration clauses in agreements.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State as well as learned counsel representing the respondent nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7. The respondent no.7 who is the recovery agent of respondent no.4 has chosen not to file any counter affidavit. Learned counsel representing respondent no.4 has filed vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no.7.

2. Petitioner in the present case is seeking release of his four wheeler motor vehicle namely Safari bearing Reg.No.BR-32 G7733. It is the case of the petitioner that the vehicle in question was purchased from Guinea Motor Pvt. Ltd., Boring Canal Road, Patna through M/S R.K. Finance Ltd. (respondent no.4) for a total price of Rs.7,88,752/- against which the petitioner paid Rs.3,80,265/- on 07.05.2012 in cash and rest of the amount was financed by M/S R.K. Finance Ltd. (respondent no.4). The financial assistance provided to the petitioner was required to be refunded in 32 equal monthly installments of Rs.21,000/-.

3. It is the specific case of the petitioner that initially he was given to understand that there shall be rebate of Rs.40,000/- and interest is payable only at the rate of 9% per annum, therefore believing this assurance petitioner got loan from the Finance Company, but later on the said rebate was not given and interest rate was also enhanced which led to a dispute between the petitioner and the Finance Company. It is alleged that on 22.06.2015 while the petitioner was coming from Jainagar to Patna from his Safari vehicle, as soon as he reached Madhubani near petrol pump, one muscleman namely Sanjay Jha (respondent no.7) along with four unknown young persons stopped the vehicle and forcibly snatched away the same handing over a forgery seizure list introducing themselves as the employees of Finance Company. It is further alleged that they also threatened the petitioner of dire consequences. This was informed to the local police and S.P., Madhubani, but they did not take any response. The petitioner thereafter filed a complaint case bearing C.R.No.1135 of 2015 in the court of learned C.J.M., Madhubani on 28.8.2015 which was forwarded by the learned court to S.P., Madhubani and the officer in-charge of Town Thana, Madhubani to register an FIR and conduct the investigation. Pursuant to this, Madhubani Town P.S. Case No.406/15 arising out of C.R.No.1135 of 2015 was lodged. It is alleged that the investigating officer is in connivance with the Finance Company (respondent no. 4) and submitted a report dated 19.01.2016 stating therein that since there was dues with the petitioner, the Safari vehicle was snatched and handed over to the company. A copy of the said report dated 19.01.2016 is Annexure-4 to the present application. Petitioner has raised several issues on the conduct of the police in investigation of the present case and has gone to the extent saying that the police are not acting as a public servant rather they are acting as criminals and to save the respondent no.4. Learned counsel further submits that after purchase of the vehicle he has paid 17 installments at the rate of Rs.21,000/- monthly and thus he has already paid Rs.7,37,265/- against the total price of vehicle and still he is willing and ready to repay the balance outstanding dues provided that M/S Guinea Motors Pvt. Ltd furnishing the detailed account charging interest at the rate of 9% per annum against the principal loan amount after deducting a rebate of Rs.40,000/- as assured by them at the time of purchase of the vehicle. It is alleged that the Finance Company is taking services of the recovery agents without adhereing to the guidelines issued by R.B.I. in this regard. No mode of recovery/seizure or re-possession has been provided to the agent and the agent is indulging in unlawful act in seizure of financed vehicle. Learned counsel relies upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Prakash Kaur and Ors. reported in (2007) 2 SCC 711. In this c