Madras High Court
M/S.Volswagen Finance Private ... vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Police on 11 January, 2021
Crl.R.C.No.760 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.01.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.RC.No.760 of 2020
M/s.Volswagen Finance Private Limited,
Rep. by its Authorised Signatory,
Mr.B.Jeevakumar,
having office at
No.3, A wing, Silver Utopia,
Cardinal Gracious Road,
Chakala, Andheri (East),
Mumbai-400 099 ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Central Crime Branch-CCB,
Chennai.
2. Mr.R.Irfan ... Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of
Cr.P.C. to set aside the order dated 05.03.2020 passed in
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.760 of 2020
Crl.M.P.No.147/2020 in C.C.No.7654/2019 on the file of CCB and
CBCID Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Egmore, Chennai and to direct
the first respondent to release the vehicle AUDI TQ7 45 TDI QUATTRO
BSIV bearing Registration No.TN 05 BP 0555 hypothecated to the
petitioner finance company in favour of the petitioner company and
permit to sell the vehicle.
For Petitioner :Mr.M.Arunachalam
For Respondents : Mr.M.Govindaraju (R2)
Mr.K.Madhan (R1)
Government Advocate
ORDER
This Criminal case has been filed challenging the order dated
05.03.2020 passed in Crl.M.P.No.147/2020 in C.C.No.7654/2019 on the
file of CCB and CBCID Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Egmore,
Chennai and to direct the first respondent to release the vehicle AUDI
TQ7 45 TDI QUATTRO BSIV bearing Registration No.TN 05 BP 0555
hypothecated to the petitioner finance company in favour of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.760 of 2020
petitioner company and permit to sell the vehicle.
2. The petitioner is the Finance Company engaged in the business
of extending loan facility on hypothecation basis to the prospective
customers. The second respondent availed financial service from the
petitioner and purchased the AUDI TQ7 45 TDI QUATTRO BSIV
vehicle. Thereafter, the said vehicle was utilised for illegal purpose.
Therefore, the respondent police seized the vehicle,during investigation
and after investigation, the respondent police registered a case for the
offences punishable under Sections 120B, 379, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471
of I.P.C. and Sections 66, 66B, 66C & 66D r/w 84D, 84C of Information
Technology Act, 2000 r/w Section 34 IPC in Crime No.215 of 2019 and
charge sheet was also laid before the learned CCB & CBCID
Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. The court also taken the
case on file in C.C.No.7654 of 2019. When the case was in the stage of
summoning the accused, it was found that some of the accused have been
absconding and during the pendency of the case, both the owner of the
vehicle and the financier had filed petitions in Crl.M.P.Nos. 147/2020
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.760 of 2020
and 5010/2010 in C.C.Nos. 7654/2019 under Section 451 Cr.P.C. before
the CCB & CBCID Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai for
interim custody of the vehicle The learned Magistrate dismissed both
the petitions vide order dated 05.03.2020 and challenging the said order,
now the financier is before this Court by way of this revision.
3. The learned counsel for the Financier would submit that since he
is the financier, he is entitled to get interim custody of the vehicle as per
the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal
Desai Versus State of Gujarat reported in 2003 (1) CTC 175 wherein
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ordered that upon production of certified
copy of the order, fix a date for production of the vehicle before it and
upon production the lower Court shall cause photographs of the vehicle
to be taken and record Panchnama thereof and the financier/owner shall
be at liberty to effect sale of the vehicle. The said Judgment was followed
by this Court in the case of Sundaram Finance Limited Vs. The State of
Tamil Nadu reported in CDJ 2010 MHC 4315 and granted relief to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.760 of 2020
financiers in various cases for interim custody and therefore the same
may be adopted in the present case also.
4. Heard both sides. Perused the material available on record.
5. Admittedly, the vehicle alleged to have involved in a crime and
a case was registered by the respondent police for the aforesaid offences
and they have also laid charge sheet before the learned CBCID
Metropolitan Magistrate and the learned Magistrate also taken the case
on file in C.C.No.. 7654 of 2019. During the pendency of the case, both
the petitioner and also the owner of the vehicle approached the Court by
filing petitions seeking for interim custody, which were dismissed and
now the financier is before this Court by way of present revision. The
learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per the directions
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision relied supra, the present
revision may be considered.
6. I have gone through the entire papers and a careful perusal of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.760 of 2020
the records would go to show that both the owner and financier filed a
petitions under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. and the same were dismissed.
Though the owner has not challenged the order, the financier has
approached this Court by way of this revision. The main reason stated is
that the second respondent has committed default in payment of the
installments and therefore the petitioner company has every right to take
possession of the vehicle and by all means the petitioner company is the
hypothecated owner of the said vehicle till the entire dues were paid by
the second respondent and further the trial may require a long time to
conclude and by the time vehicle would be fully damaged and its value
would be diminished. Therefore, either the financier or the owner would
be the beneficiary. One thing is clear, the petitioner as a third party filed
the petition and the same is dismissed and challenged the said order by
way of this revision but the finance Company has not filed any affidavit
to the effect that he will keep the vehicle in better position and got
adequate infrastructure to have the custody of the vehicle. Though the
learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner got
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.760 of 2020
arbitration award and the said award is nothing to do with the present
petition. Therefore, under these circumstances this Court does not satisfy
with the reasons stated by the petitioner and is not inclined to interfere
with the order passed by the learned Magistrate as there is no merit in
this criminal revision and the same is liable to be dismissed and
accordingly this criminal revision is dismissed. The respondent police is
directed to secure the absconding accused as early as possible without
further delay and produce them before the learned Magistrate the learned
Magistrate is directed to expedite the trial and pass orders on merits and
in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. In case the police
had no opportunity to produce the accused, the trial Court after obtaining
the procedure contemplated under Criminal Procedure Code can take
steps to split up the case and proceed further in accordance with law.
Index:Yes/No 11.01.2021
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
arr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.760 of 2020
P.VELMURUGAN, J
arr
To
The CBCID Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Egmore, Chennai.
Crl.RC.No.760 of 2020
11.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.760 of 2020
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
