Chandra Sekaran v. The Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16.03.2017

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM Crl.O.P.(MD) No.17679 of 2016 1.Chandra Sekaran 2.Udhayakumar : Petitioners/Aggrieved Persons -vs1.The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Paramakudi Sub Division, Ramanathapuram District.

3.The Inspector of Police, Paramakudi Town Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

4.Vellaisamy : Respondents/Respondents Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to direct the Inspector of Police, Paramakudi Town Police Station, Ramanathapuram District, not to harass the petitioners by compelling them to discharge the secured asset I.e., Mahindra Xylo Car pledged by the 4th respondent while borrowing a loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from the 2nd petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr. R.Anand For R1 to R3 : Mr.A.P.Balasubramani Government Advocte (Crl. Side) For 4th respondent : Mr.S.Malaikani

O R D E R

This petition has been filed to direct the 3rd respondent, not to harass the petitioners by compelling them to discharge the secured asset I.e., Mahindra Xylo Car pledged by the 4th respondent, while borrowing a loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from the 2nd petitioner.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the 3rd respondent under the guise of holding an enquiry, coercing the petitioner to hand over the secured asset, namely Mahindra Xylo Jeep to the 4th respondent and that originally the 4th respondent has approached the 1st respondent for getting loan, who in turn has introduced the 2nd petitioner for that purpose, accordingly, by pledging a Mahindra Xylo Car, he has obtained a loan of Rs.

3,00,000/- on the assurance that the same would be repaid within a period of six months and that while receiving the loan, he has also handed over the invoices as well as the temporary registration certificate to the 2nd petitioner along with the vehicle and that the 4th respondent has not acted promptly, with regard to the repayment of loan and that the 4th respondent has approached the 3rd respondent and made a blank complaint, as if the 2nd petitioner has taken his car and based on the complaint, the petitioners were called by the respondents police and hence, this petition is filed seeking for a direction as stated in the petition.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent would submit that the 4th respondent has approached the 2nd respondent, who is doing real estate business, for loan and he had arranged loan from the first petitioner, who is doing money lending business and the 4th respondent had borrowed loan of Rs.1,25,000/- from them and that due to illness, the 4th respondent was taking treatment in a hospital and hence, he could not pay the interest for some time and on 03.012016, the petitioners had stolen the Xylo car parked in front of the house by using duplicate key and hence, a complaint was given against the petitioners and on enquiry the petitioners agreed to return the car even without any money and thereafter, the petitioners filed Crl.O.P(MD)No.17679 of 2016 seeking a direction to the 3rd respondent not to harass them and the matter was referred to the mediation centre for settlement, but the mediation could not succeed. Hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the petition.

4.Heard the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and perused the materials available on record.

5.The case of the petitioners is that on 07.05.2015, the 4th respondent approached the 1st petitioner for the purpose of getting loan, who in turn, has introduced the 2nd petitioner and by pledging a Mahindra Xylo car, the 4th respondent obtained loan of Rs.3,00,000/- and he assured that he would be repaid the amount within a period of six months and thereafter, without returning the amount, the 4th respondent preferred a complaint and on the basis of the complaint, the respondents police harassed the petitioners to return the Mahindra Xylo car. In this case, the petitioners are not produced any document to show that the vehicle was pledged by the 4th respondent. Hence, the argument of the

petitioners is that the vehicle was pledged for the loan obtained by the 4th respondent has no merit. Further, a complaint is pending against the petitioners the petitioners have stolen the vehicle parked in front of the 4th respondent house by using duplicate key. In view of the above circumstances, the petitioners were asked to appear for enquiry before the 3rd respondent police and since, there are prima facie materials available against the petitioners, the 3rd respondent police has enquired the petitioners and they were not harassed by the respondents police. Hence, the relief sought for by the petitioners cannot be granted. 6.In the result, this petition is dismissed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Protocol) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Paramakudi Sub Division, Ramanathapuram District.

3.The Inspector of Police, Paramakudi Town Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

+1cc to Mr.S.Malaikani Advocate in SR.No.15340 ER JS/MR/SAR.2/11.04.2017/3P-5C Crl.O.P.(MD) No.17679 of 2016 16.03.2017