SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(Mad) 3513

S.VAIDYANATHAN
HDFC Bank Limited – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent


ORDER :

This petition has been filed, seeking to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.66 of 2015, pending on the file of the 1st respondent Police.

2. The case of the petitioner is that there was an agreement dated 24.12.2013 between the defacto complainant/2nd respondent and the petitioner, vide which a loan was obtained for a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- for purchase of a car. Since the 2nd respondent did not repay the loan, after notice to him, the car was seized by the petitioner and kept in their custody. Therefore, the defacto complainant has made a complaint against the officials of the Bank and a case was also registered in Crime No.66 of 2015 for an offence under Section 379, IPC.

2.1 It is submitted that the respondent police also send an undated communication to the petitioner Bank, asking them to surrender the vehicle, as the same is required for investigation as well as for production before the Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court, seeking to quash the FIR, registered in Crime No.66 of 2015. Even though notice has been served on the 2nd respondent, no one entered appearance for him.

3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.A.Math







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top