Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Writ No.17 of 2010 ====================================================== PRABHAT KUMAR S/O SRI RAM NARAIN PODDAL, R/O MOHALLA SUBHAS NAGAR POLITECNIC CHOWK, P.S. KHAZAN CHHAT, P.O. & DIST. PURNEA .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. M/S MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICE LTD., GATEWATY BUILDING, APOLLO MUMBAI, AT PRESENT BRANCH OFFICE RUNNING AT NAVATAN HAT BY THE SIDE OF NH-31, P.S.- K.HAT, DISTT. PURNEA 3. SRI SRINIVASA RAGHWAN ARBITRATOR, NO. 121/03, FLAT- 4, BABA FOUNDATION NTR STREET RANGRAJPURAM, KODAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI-50024 4. MAHINDRA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED MAHINDRA TOWERS, GM BHOSAL MARG WORLI, MUMBAI-400018 5. BRAJESH MISHRA S/O RAMESH CHAINDRA MISHRA BRAJESH AUTOMOBILE NH-31 NAVRATANHATTA, K.HAT, PURNEA 6. RAMESH CHAND MISHRA S/O SRI RAVI BANS NARAIN, NH- 31 NAVRATANHATTA, K.HAT, PURNEA 7. THE OFFICER-INCHARGE, K.HAT (MARANGA) P.S. AND DISTT- PURNEA .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. For the Respondent/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN C.A.V. ORDER 7. 24.02.2012 1. The present writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the manner of seizure of his bus by way of recovery of debts due to non banking financial institutions through dubious means of employing agents, musclemen, goondas and unscrupulous elements of society and accordingly for release of the said vehicle to the petitioner being the owner and for related reliefs. 2. The case of the petitioner in short is that being in Patna High Court CR. WJC No.17 of 2010 (7) dt.24-02-2012 2 need of a financer for purchase of a tourist bus for running transportation business he approached the respondents and in due course the bus bearing registration no. BR-11D-7784 came to be purchased. However, just two months later the bus developed mechanical problems for which the required replacement parts were not readily available which thus took nearly two months. Thereafter further problems developed with the battery, and later on the engine also seized, all of which took time for repairs. In the meanwhile, however the transportation business of the petitioner was severely hampered causing him irreparable loss and injury on a day to day basis. 3. It has further been stated that initially the installments had been regularly paid by the petitioner but in view of the inordinate delay in repairs such payments were stopped leading to repossession of the bus by the financer. 4. Being seriously prejudiced by the action of forcible repossession of the bus by allegedly illegal means by employing musclemen who took away the said bus after compelling the passengers on board to disembark, the petitioner filed complaint case no. 76/2008 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea which led to registering a case under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. by the police vide K.Hat (Maranga) P.S. Case No. 504/2008. 5. It appears that the police after investigation submitted final form finding the allegations untrue. It has further Patna High Court CR. WJC No.17 of 2010 (7) dt.24-02-2012 3 been stated in course of submissions before this Court that a protest petition has been filed before the learned Trial Court in this regard at the instance of the petitioner, which is said to be pending. 6. Pursuant to notices being issued, the respondents have appeared and have been heard. Notice could not be served on respondent no.3, however learned counsel for the petitioner requested to proceed with the matter. 7. After hearing the parties and on going through the materials on record, this Court is of the opinion that no interference is called for in the facts and circumstances of the case. The order dated 10.11.2009 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea on a petition for release of the bus clearly records as follows: “Heard. Perused the record. From perusal of the same, it appears that petitioner/ informant lodged this case for the offence under [STATUTE] . as well as taking away the aforesaid bus forcibly against the accused persons and others and police after completing investigation submitted Final Form as untrue. It also appears that the learned A.P.P. prays to issue Notice against the Financer of the alleged seized vehicle for filing reply on the aforesaid petition but the learned counsel for the petitioner insisted to dispose of the aforesaid petition”. 8. In view of the result of the investigation finding the allegations untrue, it is evident that the foundational fact whether or not the bus had been taken away forcibly is itself in dispute. Moreover, it appears that the petitioner himself insisted for disposal of the petition under consideration rather than for issuance of notice Patna High Court CR. WJC No.17 of 2010 (7) dt.24-02-2012 4 to the financer. 9. It is well settled that a writ Court will not enter into disputed facts as is clearly the case here. Besides, as far as the question of release of the tourist bus is concerned, the same appears to arise purely out of a contractual transaction between private persons involving a dispute of a commercial nature. 10. With regard to the grievance of the petitioner relating to improper investigation by the police and the forcible repossession of the tourist bus, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice will be met if the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea is directed to look into the matter and if any protest petition is found to be pending as claimed by the petitioner, the same should be disposed of expeditiously preferably within a period of three months hereof in accordance with law. 11. In doing so, regard may be had of the decision reported in AIR 2007 SC 1349 (Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Prakash Kaur & Ors.) which has been relied upon by the peti

Applicable IPC Section: 363

Statute Text:
Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code. Kidnapping. Whoever kidnaps any person from India or from lawful guardianship, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.