IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 19TH JULY 2011 / 28TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 19022 of 2011(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S. INDUS IND BANK LTD., (VEHICLE FINANCE DIVISION), "SHALOM TOWERS", 34/138-D BYE PASS NORTH END, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-682 024, REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL EXECUTIVE PARTHEESH S. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANCHAL POLICE STATION, ANCHAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 691306 2. N.RAVEENDRAN, THUSHARA, AGASTHIACODE, ANCHAL P.O., KOLLAM-691 306. BY GOVT.PLEAER SRI.T.K.VIPIN DAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.19022/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT MADE IN W.P.(C) NO.29754/2010 DATED 12/1/2011 EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER PUNALUR ON 13/6/2011 EXT.P3: COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITITIONER BEFORE THE DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER DATED 11/7/2011 EXT.P4: COPY OF THE DELIVERY RECEIPT SIGNED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 24/6/2008. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No.19022 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Abdul Rehim, J. The petitioner company is engaged in banking activities including lending of money by hypothecation of motor vehicles. It is stated that the 2nd respondent had purchased a vehicle bearing registration number KL-2K-5131 under hire purchase agreement, with the financial assistance from the petitioner company. Consequent to the default committed in paying the monthly hire charges, the petitioner demanded to surrender possession of the vehicle and the vehicle was handed over to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent. When the Motor Vehicle Authorities initiated steps for realisation of arrears of tax with respect to the vehicle, the petitioner had approached this court in a writ petition. In Ext.P1 judgment, this court directed the Motor Vehicle Authority concerned to conduct an adjudication on the question regarding liability for payment of WPC.No.19022/2011 2 the tax, considering the objections raised by the petitioner. It is stated that Ext.P2 order was issued by the Joint Regional Transport Officer, Punalur, holding that the petitioner is liable for payment of arrears of tax. However, Ext.P2 order was challenged in a statutory appeal filed before the Deputy Transport Commissioner. In the meanwhile, the vehicle in question was re-delivered possession to the 2nd respondent on payment of the arrears due under the hire purchase agreement. But, it is alleged that, the 2nd respondent has submitted a false complaint before the first respondent disputing the delivery of the vehicle. 2. The grievance of the petitioner at present is that the first respondent is harassing the officials of the petitioner company under the guise of investigation of the complaint made by the 2nd respondent and that the petitioner is being compelled to hand over original of the delivery note (Ext.P4) issued by the 2nd respondent. Since the original of Ext.P4 has to be kept for official purposes, which is the only documentary available evidencing re-delivery effected to the 2nd respondent, the petitioner is not in a position to handover the same. It is alleged WPC.No.19022/2011 3 that there is threat from the side of the first respondent under the guise of the investigation of the case. 3. Learned Government Pleader Sri.T.K.Vipindas, on the basis of the instructions received from the first respondent, submitted that the complaint in question was referred by the Magistrate Court under Section 156(3) of Crl.P.C. and on the basis of that Crime No.594/11 was registered against the petitioner company, alleging offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 & 34 IPC. The complaint was lodged by the 2nd respondent to the effect that the Bank had cheated him by making false records showing repossession of the vehicle and under the guise of such document, attempt was made to put the liability for payment of motor vehicle tax on the 2nd respondent. However, it is informed by the first respondent that the petitioner was required to produce the original document to show re-delivery of the vehicle, as part of the investigation of the crime already registered. It is stated that apart from steps taken as part of investigation of the rime registered, no harassment of whatsoever nature is caused from the side of the first respondent to the petitioner company or to its officials. WPC.No.19022/2011 4 4. Considering the rival contentions, we notice that a criminal case has already been registered against the petitioner. Sri.Praveen Hariharan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the 2nd respondent had instituted such criminal complaint with absolutely false allegations . 5. However, we are not inclined to enter upon any findings regarding merits of the complaint or with respect to veracity of the allegations raised therein. It will be open to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy to quash the criminal complaint, if it is not legally sustainable. At this stage of the matter, we are not in a position to issue any order restraining the first respondent from proceeding with investigation of the crime registered. However, if presence of any of the officials of the first respondent is required, proper notice should be issued by the first respondent under Section 161 of the Crl. P.C. We direct the first respondent to ensure that no harassment of any nature is caused to any of the officials of the petitioner under the guise of the investigation and that no interference with the normal business activities of the petitioner shall be done as part of such investigation. WPC.No.19022/2011 5 The writ petition is closed with the above observations. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE dpk