Jharkhand High Court
Prem Chand Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 February, 2024
Author: Navneet Kumar
Bench: Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 507 of 2019
Prem Chand Mahto --- --- Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2. Branch Manager, Aris Capital Private Ltd. Kolkata
3. Shri Krishna
4.Santanu Biswas --- --- Opposite Parties
.......
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, A.P.P.
For the O.P No. 3 : Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, Advocate
For the O.P No.2 & 4 : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Arti Kumari, Advocate
Md. Faiyaj Alam, Advocate
09/02.02.2024 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
counsels for the opposite parties as also the learned A.P.P. on behalf of
the State.
2. This Criminal Revision Application has been filed by the
petitioner against the order dated 30.03.2019 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bokaro in connection with Complaint Case
No. 126 of 2018, which was filed as a Protest Petition in connection with
Chas P.S. Case No. 101 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. No. 499 of 2017
whereby and where under the learned Court has ordered the vehicle
bearing registration no. JH-10-AA-5848 to be released in favour of
finance company Aris Capital Private Limited.
3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that originally the
complaint case was filed by the petitioner, which was registered as
Complaint Case No. 197 of 2017 in the court of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bokaro, which was sent under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C to the
Chas Police Station for institution of F.I.R, which was subsequently
registered as Chas P.S. Case No. 101 of 2017 dated 20.04.2017
registered under Section 406,420,120B/34 IPC corresponding to G.R.
No. 499 of 2017 lodged against the Aris Capital Private Limited and
three other accused persons.
4. It has further been submitted that this petitioner has purchased a
truck bearing registration No. JH-10-AA-5848 through Indus Bank in
the month of June 2011, which had sanctioned loan of Rs.27 Lakh in
favour of the petitioner. It has further been pointed out that due to
financial loss, petitioner took further loan of Rs.7,32,809/-(Rupees
Seven Lakh Thirty Two Thousand Eight Hundred and Nine only) from
the Aris Capital Private Limited (Opposite Party no.2) in monthly
installment (EMI) of Rs.25000/-. Petitioner was paying the monthly
installment, however, on 23.11.2016 the vehicle was forcibly snatched
by the opposite party no. 3 and 4 without serving any notice of demand
of payment upon the petitioner. Thereafter, the aforesaid F.I.R. was
instituted.
5. Further, it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that after
investigation the police submitted the final form and on submission of
the final form the learned court below issued notice to the petitioner and
thereafter on the basis of the protest petition the cognizance of this case
was taken by the court below on 15.03.2019 for the offence punishable
under Section 406/34 of the IPC against the financial company Aris
Capital Private Limited, Branch Manager, Aris Capital Private Limited
(Opposite Party no.2); Sri Krishna ( Opposite Pary no.3) and Shantanu
Biswas (Opposite Party no.4). Further, it has been submitted on behalf of
the petitioner that petitioner made an application before the learned court
below for the release of the vehicle in his favour and accordingly the
learned court below rejected the prayer of the petitioner and released the
vehicle in favour of Finance Company Aris Capital Private Limited (O.P.
No.2) vide order dated 30.03.2019, which is under challenge.
6. It has further been pointed out that on earlier occasion the learned
Court below has released the vehicle in favour of the petitioner vide
order dated 02.06.2018 against which the finance company M/s Aris
Capital Private Limited preferred criminal revision before the learned
court below in Cr. Revision No. 109 of 2018 wherein the learned
Revisional Court of Additional Sessions Judge-I cum Special Judge,
FTC, Bokaro vide judgment dated 31.08.2018 has set aside the order of
release of vehicle in favour of the petitioner and remanded the matter
back to the lower court below to rehear the matter of release of vehicle
in question afresh observing that in the stage of inquiry itself the learned
Magistrate has passed said order of release of vehicle in favour of the
petitioner dated 02.06.2018. On remand the learned court below after
taking cognizance for the offence under Section 406/34 of the IPC
against the four accused namely Aris Capital Private Limited; Chief
Manager, Aris Capital Pvt. Ltd., Sri Krishna and Santanu Biswas passed
the impugned order dated 30.03.2019 for release of vehicle in favour of
Aris Capital Private Limited (O.P. No.2) rejecting the prayer of the
petitioner and therefore, this criminal revision has been preferred.
7. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that it is a civil
nature of dispute between the parties for payment and re-payment of the
loan amount where the vehicle in question was hypothecated as a
security for the repayment of the loan amount and hence there is no
occasion for the Finance Company to take the vehicle in question in their
possession and therefore, the impugned order dated 30.03.2019 is bad in
law and fit to be set aside.
8. On the other hand learned counsels for the opposite party no.2 and
4 and opposite party no.3 have jointly submitted that this case is pending
for long period of time since 2017 wherein the cognizance has been
taken as far back as on 15.03.2019 for the offence punishable under
Section 406/34 of the IPC against 4 accused including opposite party
no.2 , 3 and 4 and therefore, appropriate order may be passed for
disposal of this Criminal Revision instead of passing any order on the
point of release of vehicle. It has further been pointed out that although
the vehicle has been released in favour of the financial company Aris
Capital Private Limited vide order dated 30.03.2019 by the learned court
below but condition has been imposed that the said vehicle shall not be
either sold, mortgaged or transferred by any other mode with further
direction that physical feature of the vehicle shall not be changed and the
same shall be produced before the court as and when required till the
disposal of the case. Therefore, it is prayed on behalf of the opposite
parties that let a direction be given to the learned court below for
disposal of the criminal case.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not raise any objection to
the contentions of the opposite parties and further prayed that a timeline
be fixed for disposal of the said criminal case and also pass appropriate
order regarding the vehicle in question.
10. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State has also not raised
any objection in view of the aforesaid submissions advanced on behalf
of both the parties praying therein for direction upon the learned court
below for disposal of the criminal case within stipulated period of time,
since the case is of 2017 and cognizance has been taken long back on
15.03.2019.
11. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, perused the
record of the case.
12. In view of the aforesaid submissions advanced on behalf of the
learned counsel for the parties, it is found just and proper to dispose of
the instant Criminal Revision by giving direction to the learned court
below to dispose of the criminal case as early as possible, preferably
within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of this order.
Learned Court below is also directed to pass appropriate order regarding
the vehicle in question bearing registration no. JH-10-AA-5848 along
with disposal of the case
13. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Revision Application gets
disposed of with the aforesaid direction.
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
A.Mohanty
