P.Haresh, Aged 37 Years, v. State Rep. By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 07.01.2022 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR Crl.O.P.No.10753 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.No.5509 of 2018 P.Haresh

...Petitioner/Accused

Versus

1. State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police, Thiruppur North Police Station, Thiruppur District.

Cr.No.279 of 2018

2. Muthurathinam

...Respondents/Complainant/

Defacto Complainant PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records with respect of Crime No.279 of 2018 pending on the file of 1st respondent and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Ms.V.Premalatha for Mr.R.Nalliyappan For Respondent : Mr. R.Kishore Kumar Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

O R D E R

This Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Cr.No.279 of 2018 pending on the file of the 1st Respondent Police. 2.The crux of the allegation in the FIR shows that the defacto-complainant has availed a loan of 15 lakhs by executing loan Agreement with the Kanagadurga Finance. The monthly instalment payable is Rs. 80,870/-. however on 8.03.2018 at about 4:00 PM, four people claimed to be coming from Kanagadurga Finance came to purchase the vehicle and they used the credit card to purchase the vehicle for Rs.25,50,000 and paid Rs.50,000/- as advance. However in order to test the vehicle they took the vehicle for test drive. Thereafter, they have taken away the vehicle along with Rs.20,000/- which was kept in the car along with the ATM Cards hence the complaint has been lodged. The FIR has been filed under section 392 I.P.C. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR is nothing but an abuse process of law and motivated. The arbitration proceedings were already initiated. The arbitrator https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

has passed an interim order on 5th day of March 2018 to seize the vehicle which was subject matter of the loan Agreement. 4.Pursuant to the order, letters also sent to the defactocomplainant as to why they have not handed over the car. With the help of the police, the car was seized pursuant to the orders of the arbitrator. Only thereafter, this FIR has been filed as if there was a robbery committed by the accused hence this FIR is nothing but abuse of process of law. 5.Heard the Learned Government advocate(Criminal Side). 6.The fact that the car which was said to have been taken by the accused was the subject matter of the Loan Agreement is not in dispute. Similarly the receipt of the loan of Rs.15 lakhs from Kanagadurga Finance is also not in dispute. The papers placed before me, particularly, orders passed on 05.03.

2018 by the Arbitrator appointed in this regard indicated that the interim order was passed to reposses the vehicle as per the Loan Agreement. only on pursuant to the order, the vehicle was repossessed,only thereafter, on 09.03.2018 the first information has been filed as if the occurrence took place on 08.03.2018. These facts clearly indicates that this FIR is off suit of the seizure of the vehicle pursuant to the orders passed by the arbitrator, which is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly the same is liable to be quashed. 7.In view of the same, the Criminal Original Petition is Ordered. FIR in Cr.No.279 of 2018 on the file of the 1st Respondent Police is quashed. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-II) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar ggs/sha To

1. The Inspector Of Police, Thiruppur North Police Station, Thiruppur District.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

Crl. O.P. No. 10753 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.No. 5509 of 2018 PL(CO) RGA(10/02/2022) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/