Karnataka High Court
Sharanabasava S/O Hanmantraya vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 18 December, 2023
Author: K Natarajan
Bench: K Natarajan
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9289
CRL.P No. 200301 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 200321 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200301 OF 2023
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200321 OF 2023
IN CRL.P NO.200301/2023
SHARANABASAVA
S/O HANMANTRAYA,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE/OWNER OF TIPPER,
R/O VILLAGE KARNAL, POST: HEMNOOR,
TALUK: SHORAPUR, DISTRICT: YADGIRI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. R.V.NADAGOUDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by
KHAJAAMEEN
L MALAGHAN 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Location: High
Court Of REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP,
Karnataka
KALABURAGI BENCH - 585 107.
(THROUGH YADGIRI TOWN POLICE STATION
DISTRICT: YADGIRI).
2. M/S. SRI. RAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO.LTD
ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY AND CONSTITUTED.
ATTORNEY MR. MARIBASAVA,
S/O SIDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: CREDIT EXECUTIVE,
R/O 1ST FLOOR, SHAHARA COMPLEX,
OPP: TMC MAIN ROAD, YADGIRI,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9289
CRL.P No. 200301 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 200321 of 2023
SHORAPUR, TALUK: SHORAPUR,
DISTRICT: YADGIRI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ANITA M. REDDY, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI. D.P. AMBEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH/SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED:
24.07.2019 PASSED BY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM COURT
AT YADGIRI IN YADGIRI TOWN PS CRIME NO. 32/2019 AND TO
SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED: 22.02.2023
PASSED BY SESSIONS JUDGE AT YADGIRI IN CRL. REV. P.
NO.25/2019 AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO RELEASE THE
BHARATH BENZ TIPPER LORRY NO. KA-33/A-8741 IN FAVOUR
OF THE PETITIONER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
IN CRL.P NO.200321/2023
NAGRAJ
S/O NIRANJANAYYA,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE/OWNER OF TIPPER,
R/O VILLAGE IBRAHIMPUR,
TALUK: SHORAPUR, DISTRICT: YADGIRI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. R.V.NADAGOUDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP,
KALABURAGI BENCH - 585 107.
(THROUGH YADGIRI TOWN POLICE STATION,
DISTRICT: YADGIRI).
2. M/S. SRI. RAM FINANCE CO.LTD
ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY AND CONSTITUTED.
ATTORNEY MR. MARIBASAVA,
S/O SIDDAPPA,
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9289
CRL.P No. 200301 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 200321 of 2023
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: CREDIT EXECUTIVE,
R/O 1ST FLOOR, SHAHARA COMPLEX,
OPP: TMC MAIN ROAD, SHORAPUR,
TALUK: SHORAPUR,
DISTRICT: YADGIRI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ANITA M. REDDY, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI. D.P. AMBEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH/SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED:
24.07.2019 PASSED BY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM COURT
AT YADGIRI IN YADGIRI TOWN PS CRIME NO.32/2019 AND TO
SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED: 22.02.2023
PASSED BY SESSIONS JUDGE AT YADGIRI IN CRL. REV. P.
NO.25/2019 AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO RELEASE THE
BHARATH BENZ TIPPER LORRY NO. KA-33/A-8741 IN FAVOUR
OF THE PETITIONER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER
ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The Crl.P.No.200301/2023 is filed by the petitioner said
to be RC owner of the vehicle Bharath Benz Tipper Lorry
bearing No.KA-33/A-8741 which was seized by the police in
Crime No.32/2019 registered by Yadgiri town police station for
the offence punishable under Sections 406, 409, 467, 468, 420
of IPC.
2. The Crl.P.No.200321/2023 is filed by the petitioner
said to be RC owner of the vehicle Bharath Benz Tipper Lorry
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9289
bearing No.KA-33/A-8742 which was seized by the police in
Crime No.33/2019 registered by Yadgiri town police station for
the offence punishable under Sections 406, 409, 467, 468, 420
of IPC.
3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the
petitioners, learned HCGP for the State and learned counsel for
respondent No.2.
4. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner
purchased the vehicle stated above from the accused No.1 for
valuable consideration on 06.3.2019. The RC was transferred
in his name and he was in possession of the vehicle.
Subsequently, the police seized the vehicle in Crime
No.32/2019 on the complaint filed by the respondent No.2,
where it was alleged, the vehicle was purchased by the original
purchaser by borrowing loan from the Sri. Ram Finance Co. Ltd
company for Rs.28 lakhs. The vehicle was hypothecated,
subsequently the said Iranna Aski present owner sold the
vehicle to the petitioner. However, prior to that one more
Sharanagouda had purchased the vehicle and now the
petitioner was RC owner of the vehicle, which was seized. He
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9289
has filed the applications for releasing the vehicle , which came
to be rejected by the Trial Court and revision also filed which
was dismissed by the Session Judge. Hence he is before this
court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended the
petitioner is a bonafide purchaser, purchased the vehicle for
valuable consideration and he is enjoying the movable
property. There is no endorsement in the RC of this vendor
regarding hypothecation. Therefore, he has purchased the
vehicle from the vendor Sharanagouda. The respondent
already issued no objection to sell the property to the RTO.
Therefore, the RTO issued the no objection certificate by
transferring the vehicle. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for
interim custody of the vehicle till conclusion of the trial. Hence
prayed for allowing this petition.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.2
seriously objected the petition and contended that the vehicle
was previously borrowed by one Iranna Aski and he has
obtained permission from the Finance Company for selling to
one Sharanagouda. Accordingly, the respondent No.2 issued
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9289
no objection for selling the same in October 2018.
Subsequently, Sharanagouda also paid one installment under
the new hypothecation agreement, entered into between
Sharanagouda and Sri. Ram Finance Co. Ltd company.
Thereafter without the knowledge and consent of the financier
the Sharangouda sold the vehicle to the Sharanabasava the
present petitioner. A criminal complaint was filed against all
the vendors of the petitioner and the petitioner, including a
staff of the Sri. Ram Finance Co. Ltd., Therefore, when the
vehicle is hypothecated with the Sri. Ram Finance Co. Ltd.,
they are entitled to obtain the interim custody under the
hypothecation deed and they are entitled to recover the
possession of the property. Such being the case, he has
supported the order passed by the both the courts below. In
support of his argument he has relied upon the judgment of the
Single Judge, Principal Bench, Bengaluru in Crl.P.No.2406/2008
dated 31.08.2009.
7. Having heard the arguments, perused the records,
which reveal, on perusal of the same, the vendor's vendor of
the petitioner one Iranna Aski, borrowed the loan from the
respondent No.2 for Rs.28,00,000/- for purchasing the Bharath
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9289
Benz Tipper Lorry bearing No.KA-33-A-8741. Subsequently, he
has obtained the permission from the respondent No.2 for
selling the vehicle to one Sharanegouda. Accordingly, under
form No.35, the respondent No.2 issued no objection dated
15.10.2018 for alienating this vehicle to one Sharanegouda.
Based upon the no objection, the vehicle was transferred to one
Sharanegouda who is the vendor of this petitioner. The vehicle
was transferred in the name of the petitioner on 06.03.2019.
But the case of the respondent is Sharanegouda also entered
into hypothecation agreement with the Finance company and
he has also paid one installment, but subsequently without the
knowledge of the respondent No.2 he has sold the vehicle to
the petitioner. The hypothecation agreement also was part of
the charge sheet. A copy was produced to this court for
verifying the same, there was a fresh hypothecation agreement
between one Sharenegowda the vendor of this petitioner and
the Sri. Ram Finance Co. Ltd dated 01.09.2018 and one
Virupakshappa was surety in this agreement and loan.
Subsequently, when the vehicle was transferred in the name of
Sharanegouda there is no reference in the RC of the
Sharanegouda. Based upon the RC of the Sharanegouda, the
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9289
petitioner purchased the vehicle. Therefore, the complaint
came to be filed by the respondent No.2 against Sharanegouda
the vendor of the petitioner and Sharanabasavappa. The
matter is investigated charge sheet came to be filed, where the
vendor of the petitioner by suppressing the fact of
hypothecation, sold the vehicle to the petitioner. Ofcourse
there is no reference in the RC book, but the fact remains the
hypothecation agreement is existing between the vendor of the
petitioner and respondent No.2 In a similar situation the
coordinate bench of this court in Crl.P.No.2406/2008 dated
31.08.2009 has held, at para No.6 as below,
" It reveals that the vehicle was already
hypothecated to the complainant and accused
No.1 without disclosing the same has sold the
same to the accused No.3. admittedly
accused No.1 was the borrower and the
vehicle was under hypothecation in such
circumstances, it was not free from
hypothecation. No doubt, the registration
certificate, did not reveal such thing but it is
matter of record. Both the courts have taken
into consideration and accordingly have
rejected the application. I find no grounds to
interfere with the impugned order"
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9289
8. On perusal of the order, in Crl.P.No.200301/2023, it
is case belonging to the same Sri. Ram Finance Co. Ltd, where
borrower sold the vehicle behind the back of the finance
company, without the consent of the financier. Ofcourse the
first purchaser Iranna Aski had obtained the permission for
alienating the vehicle. Based upon the fresh hypothecation
agreement between the Sharanegouda, the vendor of the
petitioner and the financier the no objection was issued. As per
the contention, Sharanegouda the vendor of the present
petitioner paid one installment, subsequently the vehicle was
sold to the petitioner. Therefore, as per the hypothecation
agreement, the respondent financier is entitled to recover the
possession of the vehicle and sell it for recovery of the loan
amount. If at all the petitioner is bonafide purchaser from his
vendor Sharanegouda, he can take the defence in the criminal
case and if at all he feels his vendor cheated him, he can file
the complaint against the accused No.1 for receiving the
money, cheating him by suppressing the hypothecation
agreement and selling the vehicle. Such being the case, I am
of the view, there is no error committed by both the court
below in rejecting the application.
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9289
9. On perusal of the records, in Crl.P.No.200321/2023
there was a hypothecation agreement held between the original
owner Iranna Aski. Subsequently on the request, the
respondent No.2 issued no objection for selling the vehicle in
favour of Virupakshappa. the said Virupakshappa became the
RC owner and subsequently the present petitioner Nagaraj, RC
owner purchased the vehicle for valuable consideration.
However, there is no reference in the RC of the Virupakshappa
regarding hypothecation. Though the Virupakshappa and
earlier vendor, the original owner Iranna Aski obtained the
permission or consent from the respondent No.2., but this
Virupakshappa without obtaining consent has sold the vehicle
to the present petitioner-Nagaraj by suppressing the fact the
vehicle was under hypothecation. Even though he had entered
into agreement of hypothecation with the respondent No.2, on
31.08.2018 by suppressing the material fact, sold it to the
present petitioner. The matter was investigated by the police
in Crime No.33/2019 and filed the charge sheet . If at all the
petitioner is a bonafide purchaser, without the knowledge he
has purchased the vehicle from the Virupakshappa, he can take
the plea in the trial for the acquittal and if he feels the vendor
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9289
Virupakshappa cheated him, he is at liberty to file complaint
against him, for cheating and also recovery of the amount for
which he has paid for borrowing the vehicle. Such being the
case, I am of the view, the petition is also devoid of merits,
there is no error committed by both the courts below and hence
requires to be dismissed.
Accordingly, both these petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
AKV
CT:SK
