Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 3220
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
A.M. BASHEER AHAMED, J.
Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Sivagangai & Others - Respondents
Crl.RC(MD) No. 776 of 2017
Decided On : 13-12-2017
For the Petitioner:V. Kannan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: C. Mayilvahana Rajendran, Addl. Public Prosecutor.
A financier, as a third party to criminal proceedings, cannot claim interim custody of a vehicle under financial arrangements and must establish ownership through a civil court.
Headnote:
Criminal Revision - Ownership Dispute - IPC 406, 420, 120(b) - [FINANCIER] - [OWNERSHIP DISPUTE] - [IPC 406, IPC 420, IPC 120(b)] - The court discussed the ownership dispute over a seized BMW car, involving the petitioner, the borrower, and the accused. The key legal provisions of IPC 406, IPC 420, and IPC 120(b) were interpreted in the context of the petitioner's claim of ownership as a financier and the court's decision to dismiss the revision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a financier, claimed ownership of a seized BMW car purchased by the borrower, leading to an ownership dispute. The court analyzed the petitioner's claim, the borrower's default, and the implications of the arbitration award.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner, as a financier, did not have the right to seek interim custody of the vehicle under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. The court dismissed the revision, upholding the impugned order of the Judicial Magistrate.
Issues: Ownership dispute, validity of the petitioner's claim as a financier, entitlement to seek interim custody of the seized vehicle.
Ratio Decidendi: The petitioner, as a financier, could not establish ownership of the vehicle and was not entitled to seek interim custody under financial arrangements. The court relied on previous judgments and legal principles to support its decision.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed.
1. The Criminal Revision has been filed praying to set aside the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.3591 of 2017, in Crime No.20 of 2015, dated 01.09.2017, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivagangai and to return the red colour BMW (L.M.V) Car, bearing Temporary Registration No.TN-22-TMP-2037.
2. The Criminal Revision is taken up for final disposal, in the admission stage itself with the consent of either side.
3. An FIR has been registered in Crime No.20 of 2015 for the offences under Sections 406, 420 & 120(b) of IPC., on 16.09.2015, on the file of the respondent Police and investigation of the case is pending. During the course of investigation, one of the accused, who is arrayed as 3rd respondent in this Revision, was arrested and he tendered confession on his own volition. BMW Car, bearing Engine No.0015Y001 and Chassis No.WBA3F 37040NP11901 was seized and was produced under P.R.No.43 of 2017 and the said car was kept in custody.
4. Admittedly, as per the records, the 2nd respondent is the owner of the said car and he is not an accused in the criminal case. The petitioner herein is the 3rd party to the criminal proceedings and claim ownership over the seized BMW Car, as financier of the said car, which was purchased on hypothecation by the 2nd respondent herein. The petitioner filed a petition in Cr.M.P.No.3591 of 2017, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivagangai, under Section 451 of Cr.P.C., for interim custody of the said car, having temporary Registration No.TN-22-TMP-2037. Permanent Registration No. Nil., bearing Engine No.0015Y001 and Chassis No.WBA3F 37040NP11901. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are not the parties to the interim custody proceedings filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivagangai. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are newly impleaded parties in this Criminal Revision. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Sivagangai, dismissed the above petition after hearing both sides. The present Criminal Revision is preferred by the petitioner / financier challenging the impugned order of dismissal in Cr.M.P.No.3591 of 2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Sivagangai, dated 01.09.2017.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner would submit that originally the 2nd respondent has purchased the said car by availing a loan of Rs.30,00,000/- from the petitioner / finance company and since the 2nd respondent did not pay the loan amount, as agreed by him, the petitioner company filed a petition before the Arbitrator, as per the loan agreement executed by the 2nd respondent herein, at Delhi and the same was awarded in favour of the petitioner on 22.12.2015 and thus, as on date, the petitioner is the only owner of the said BMW Red Colour Car and the said car is kept under the custody of the respondent No.1 and if the said car is not returned in time, it would be caused major Pecuniary loss to the petitioner herein.
6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent, based on the counter statement filed by the respondent, would submit that the petitioner finance company even after getting a verdict from the Arbitrator, Delhi in the year 2015, has not taken any steps to get the vehicle from the owner of the vehicle (Respondent No.2) and it is not known as to how it came into possession of the accused from the real owner of the vehicle and the said vehicle was seized from the accused (Respondent No.3), whereas, the real owner (Respondent No2. herein) is another person, who is not an accused in this case and without hearing the real owner it is not possible for the Court to take a decision to return the vehicle in terms of Section 451 of Cr.P.C., and if the case property is returned to the petitioner / 3rd party, he would not produce the same during trial and likely to sale the same.
7. I have perused the materials available on record. Heard and considered the rival submissions advanced by either side.
8. The seizure of new BMW Car from th
