The main legal point established is the ownership of a vehicle under a hire purchase agreement, where the financier/financial institution retains ownership until the entire dues are settled, as interpreted in the context of Cr.P.C. sections 451 and 457.

1. This revision is directed against the order of the Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur, dated 10.10.2006.

2. The petitioner filed an application before the Court below under Sections 451 & 457 Cr.P.C., for return/release of black colour Santro car bearing registration No.TN.02U-4775 to the petitioner. It was submitted by the petitioner that on 14.09.2006 at about 3.45p.m., when he was returning from his relatives house in the said vehicle, some unknown persons waylaid him near Dr.Cherian Hospital, Ambattur Estate Road, and asked the petitioner and his relative to get down from the car and drove away with the car along with the sum of Rs.35,000/-and certain other documents. It is stated that the petitioner lodged a complaint with the Police that the vehicle is missing and the vehicle traced by the Police was in the custody of the finance company. Therefore, the petitioner sought for release/return of the vehicle.

3. The learned Judicial Magistrate by order dated 10.10.2006, directed release of the vehicle to the petitioner subject to certain conditions. At that stage of the matter, M/s.Indusind Bank, who is the first respondent herein filed an application before the Court below stating that the petitioner herein purchased the Santro Car by entering into hire purchase agreement with them on 06.06.2005 and as per the terms of the agreement, the petitioner has to pay a sum of Rs.9,205/- every month for 48 months and the petitioner became a chronic defaulter and an amount of Rs.3,70,662/-was due and payable and the car was repossessed on 14.09.2006, and the petitioner lodged a false complaint, as if the car was forcibly taken. Since a case was registered based on the false complaint given by the petitioner, as per the direction of the Police, the car was surrendered to the first respondent Police and that the original R.C., book was with the respondent company and they sought for custody of the vehicle, as they are full owner and they were not made party to the petition filed by the petitioner for return of vehicle which was disposed on 10.10.2006.

4. This petition was resisted by the petitioner herein by filing his objections and thereafter, the Court heard the matter and passed an order taking into consideration the earlier order obtained by the petitioner herein in his application by order dated 10.10.2006. The Court after discussing about the facts and the default committed by the petitioner observed that though the petitioner has obtained an earlier order, on considering the fact that the original registration certificate of the car was held by the first respondent finance company and they are the ostensible owner of the car, directed the release of the car, subject to the first respondent herein producing original registration certificate, executing bond with two sureties for a like sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, and for further direction not to alter or change the colour of the vehicle and to produce the same as and when required by the Court.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a second order could not have been passed by the learned Magistrate and as per the earlier order, the petitioner is entitled to the vehicle. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the cases of Sunitha Mehata vs. State Sub-Inspector of Police, reported in; Mr.Kamal Bothra vs. State., By Inspector of Police, reported in; M/s.Sampathraj Jain Finance vs. State., Rep., by Inspector of Police, reported in; and Smt. Sooraj Devi Vs. Pyare Lal & Anr., reported in.

6. In reply, the learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anup Sarmah vs. Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors., reported in (2013) 1 SCC 400, in an agreement of hire purchase, the purchaser remains a trustee/bailee on behalf of the financier/ financial institution and ownership remains with the latter.

7. Heard Mr.T.Muruganantham, learned counse