BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved on : 20.03.2025 Pronounced on : 30.04.2025 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR Crl.R.C.(MD)No.760 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.8140 of 2024 The Manager, S.Karthik SriRam Transport Finance Company Ltd.

Door No.103AC, Katcheri Road, Virudhunagar-626001. ... Petitioner Vs.

1.Kalidass

2.The Inspector of Police, Villoor Police Station, Villoor, Kallikudi Taluk, Madurai District. ... Respondents Prayer : This Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 438 r/w 442 B.N.S.S., to call for the entire records pertaining to the order dated 23.07.2024 in Cr.M.P.No.2211 of 2024 by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate at Peraiyur and set aside the order by allowing this revision.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Kannan For R1 : No appearance For R2 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.2211 of 2024 dated 23.07.2024 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Peraiyur, in granting interim custody of the vehicle to the first respondent.

2. It is not in dispute that the vehicle 424B2 Backhoe Loader (JCB)

bearing Registration No.TN-67-BF-9583 was seized in connection with the case in Crime No.46 of 2022 on the file of the second respondent police for the offences under Section 379 IPC and Sections 4(1)(1A) and

21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.

3. It is evident from the records that the first respondent being the registered owner of the vehicle has filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.2211 of 2024 before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court seeking interim custody of the vehicle. The first respondent in his petition in Crl.M.P.No.2211 of

2024 has impleaded the present petitioner financier of the vehicle as the second respondent. It is further evident from the records that the learned Magistrate sent a notice to the petitioner to produce the original Registration Certificate in respect of the JCB vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-67-BF-9583 and also to offer their objections for returning the vehicle to the first respondent on interim custody, that the petitioner has entered into appearance and filed their objections and also filed a separate petition seeking interim custody of the vehicle and that the learned Magistrate, considering the objections raised by the petitioner as well as by the prosecution, has passed the impugned order dated 23.07.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.2211 of 2024 granting interim custody to the first respondent and returned the petition filed by the petitioner holding that the Court cannot enforce the hire-purchase agreement for re-possession of the vehicle and that the re-possession of the vehicle shall be enforced as per the agreement between the parties. Challenging the order granting interim custody to the first respondent, the present revision came to be filed. 4. The case of the petitioner is that the first respondent approached the petitioner for a loan in respect of the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-67-BF-9583 for total agreement value of Rs.31,70,081/- and entered into a loan-cum-hypothecation agreement dated 03.08.2018 agreeing to repay the same in 60 installments commencing from 05.09.2018 to 05.08.2023, that the Regional Transport Authority, Virudhunagar has made an endorsement in favour of the petitioner company in the Registration Certificate of the vehicle and as such, the petitioner has right over the vehicle, that since the first respondent had not paid the monthly installments as agreed, the petitioner company sent a legal notice on 03.09.2021, which was not replied, that the petitioner came to know about the registration of the sand theft case and seizure of the hypothecation vehicle by the second respondent police, that since the first respondent-borrower has violated the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into between the parties, the petitioner has right over the vehicle to take possession of the same,