The petitioner-M/s Tata Capital Financial Services Limited

is before this Court calling in question order dated 10-01-2022

passed by the Principal District & Sessions Judge and Special

Judge, Bengaluru Rural District in Special Case No.235 of 2021

declining to grant interim custody of two vehicles which are

hypothecated to it on account of outstanding dues by the

borrowers of said vehicles.

2. Heard Sri Amit Deshpande, learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner. Sri K.S.Abhijith, learned High Court

Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.

- 3 -

3. Brief facts that lead the petitioner to this Court in the

subject petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as

follows:-

The petitioner is a public limited company incorporated

under the Companies Act, 1956 and classified as a non-banking

financial institution. The petitioner is into various businesses

including providing of financial services. Two borrowers

approached the petitioner seeking financial assistance for

purchase of cars 3 one ALTO K10 and another ETIOS.

Accordingly, the borrowers were granted finance for purchase

of said vehicles. The borrowers appear to have defaulted in

payment of equal monthly installments. It appears that a FIR

comes to be registered against the borrowers in Crime No.483

of 2020 for offences punishable under Sections 420, 120B read

with Section 34 of the IPC, Section 21 of the Banning of

Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 and under Section 9 of

the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial

Establishments Act, 2004.

4. Pursuant to the said complaint, during investigation

the vehicles belonging to the borrowers were seized in PF

- 4 -

No.6/2021 in Crime No.483 of 2020 which is pending before

the concerned Court as a special case in Special Case No.235 of

2021. In the proceedings, the petitioner files an application

under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C. for release of

vehicles seized under P.F.No.6 of 2021 in its favour on the

ground that it is the financier of the vehicles which are under

its hypothecation. Objections are filed by the borrowers

contending that the vehicles seized cannot be released in

favour of the financier and they are to be possessed in

accordance with law. The learned Special Judge, by his order

dated 10-01-2022, rejects the application of the petitioner on

the ground that the vehicles so sought cannot be delivered to

the petitioner merely because the borrowers have not paid

equal monthly installments. It is this order that drives the

petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

contend that the petitioner being the financier of the vehicles is

entitled to possess the vehicles in the event the borrowers

would default in installments, as it is a matter of contract

between the petitioner and the borrowers. It is his submission

that the Court has fallen in error while rejecting the application

- 5 -

on the ground that no ground is made out for delivery of seized

vehicles in favour of the petitioner and would seek that the

order be set aside and a direction be issued for delivery of the

seized vehicles to its custody.

6. On the other hand, the learned High Court Government

Pleader would contend that no fault can be found with the order

of the Special Judge as the petitioner intends to realize the

balance amount by seeking interim custody of the vehicles. If

the petitioner wants to realize the balance amount, it ought to

initiate proceedings in accordance with law and not seek such a

prayer in a proceeding where the Police have seized the

vehicles on alleged offences.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have

perused the material on record.

8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The issue

lies in a narrow compass. In Special Case No.235 of 2021 the

petitioner seeks release of vehicles seized under P.F.No.6 of

2021 on the ground that borrowers are accused