1. Petitioner has filed this petition under section 482 of CrPC for relaxation of condition No.1 imposed in the order dated 20.8.2008 passed by V Special Session Judge, Gwalior in Case No. l5 of 2008 by which, the petitioner is directed to deposit the amount of entire arrear within a period of one month.

2. Subject-matter of this petition is that the petitioner is registered owner of the truck No.MP07/HB-0816. The truck was financed by respondent No.1 Tata Motors. Loan amount was to be paid by the petitioner by way of insta1ments. Notice viz EX.P-3 was issued by the respondent No.1 then last instalment of Rs.20,000/- was deposited by the petitioner on 24.12.2008 viz. Annexure P-4 and only Rs.46,570/- remained to be deposited. Thereafter, the truck was seized when it was in transit by some agents of respondent No.2. Petitioner then filed a complaint in the Court of Y Special Session Court who directed for investigation under section 156(3) of CrPC Police Bahodapur, registered Crime No.77 of 2008 for offenses punishable under section 392, 323, 406, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC and u/s 11, 13 of MPDYPK Act viz. Annexure P-2 against Yatish Tripathi Collection Manager of Tata Finance and another. The truck was seized by the police then petitioner and respondent No.2 both filed an application in the Court of Special Sessions Judge for delivery of possession of the truck. Special Sessions Judge, Gwalior repelled the claim of the respondent No.2 and directed release of truck in favour of the petitioner imposing certain conditions as under:

(i) Petitioner Rampal Singh should deposit all remaining arrears of instalments due upto 20.8.2008 and in future, he will regularly deposit due instalments;

(ii) He will not make any change or variation in vehicle. Nor transfer or hand over it's possession to anyone else;

(iii) Whenever required, he will produce vehicle with relevant documents;

(iv) All the conditions shall be fulfilled by the petitioner within one month in default of which, respondent No.2 Tata Motors Ltd. will be entitled to file application for delivery of possession.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that procedure adopted by the bank for removing truck from possession of the petitioner is deprecated. The bank should have resorted to the procedure recognized in law to take possession of the vehicle in case, the petitioner may have committed default in payment of instalments.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the decision in case of ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Prakash Kaur and others [(2007)2 SCC 711], in that case, it is held that for recovery of loan/credit card dues/security, etc. existing system of engaging thugs/hooligans/gangsters on contract, for such recovery by banks strongly deprecated. Practice of hiring recovery agents, who are muscle man, is deprecated and needs to be discouraged. Banks should resort to procedure recognized by law to take possession of vehicles in cases where borrower has committed default instead of resorting to strong arm tactics.

5. Relying on above citation, it is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the truck was seized by police on his report when respondent NO.2's hired agents robbed his truck. Then he has to follow the long legal procedure to get the possession of truck from Court. After furnishing necessary surety and bond as directed by the Court, possession of the truck was delivered to him. At that time, truck was in worst condition. Petitioner has spent near about Rs.l,80,000/- towards maintenance, battery and tyre, etc., therefore, he is not liable to pay instalments due and interest for the period commencing from 28.1.2008 to 2.9.2008 during which, he was not in possession of the truck. So necessary direction in this respect be issued because, the respondent No.2 is wholly responsible for all this because of respondent NO.l' s hired agent, the truck was forcibly taken from lawful possession of the petitioner and therefore,