IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 2 of 2011() ---------------------- CC.139/2010 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- 1. UNNIKUTTAN, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. GIRIJAVALLABHAN, KUPPATHIL HOUSE, CHIRAKKAKODE, MADAKKATHARA, P.O. VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. NICY UNNIKUTTAN, AGED 25 YEARS, W/O. UNNIKRISHNAN, KUPPATHIL HOUSE, CHIRAKKAKODE, MADAKKATHARA, P.O. VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. VIJEESH.V.K, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. KRISHNAN, VELIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHIRAKKAKODE, MADAKKATHARA, P.O. VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.DHANYA P.ASHOKAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031. 2. SREERAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LTD., ARAFA TOWERS, VELIYANNOOR ROAD, THRISSUR -21 REPRESENTED BY MUKTHYAR AGENT M.T. JOHNY, S/O. THOMAN, MANIPARAMBIL HOUSE, ALAGAPPANAGAR.P.O, THRISSUR 693 941. R2 BY ADV. SRI.E.M.MURUGAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 2 of 2011() APPENDIX PETITIONERS ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE I: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE CJM THRISSUR DATED 10.3.2010 ANNEXURE II: COPY OF THE FIR DATED 5.5.2010 IN CRIME NO:369/2010 OF THRISSUR EAST POLICE STATION ANNEXURE III: COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 29.7.2010 IN CRIME NO:369/2010 ANNEXURE IV: COPY OF THE HYPOTHECATION AGREEMENT DATED 30.04.2009 ANNEXURE V: COPY OF THE R.C. PARTICULARS OF THE VEHICLE ANNEXURE VI: COPY OF THE A.O.P. NO:79/2010 DATED 18.2.2010 ALONG WITH THE ORDER IN I.A. NO:501/2010 RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE JJJ N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------ Crl. M.C. No: 2 OF 2011 (A) ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of November, 2011 O R D E R Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the vehicle in question was purchased for a total sum of Rs.6,75,000/- (Rupees Six lakhs seventy five thousand only). Some amount was stated to have been paid. Because of financial constraints, the petitioners committed default in payment of installments. Hence, the vehicle (JCB) was seized by second respondent, the financier. Petitioners 2 and 3 are stated to be the guarantors to the amount obtained by the first respondent from R2. According to the petitioners subsequently, second respondent initiated arbitration proceedings. Now it is stated to be pending. According to the petitioners, not only the vehicle (JCB) was seized but also the immovable property of the petitioner was attached and put up for sale. The second Crl. M.C. No: 2 OF 2011 (A) 2 respondent has filed this complaint stating that the petitioners have cheated him. According to the petitioners, even if the entire allegations made in the complaint are accepted, it would only show that a civil dispute exists between the parties. It is submitted by the learned counsel for R2 that the arbitration conciliation proceeding is pending before the Arbitrator. The fact that the vehicle (JCB) was taken into custody by the second respondent is not disputed and for the balance amount, the petitioner's property was also attached. Still the second respondent was not satisfied, is the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is true, even if civil action is pending, the proceedings under the criminal law can be set in, but not in a case like this where dispute is purely civil in nature. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it was by Crl. M.C. No: 2 OF 2011 (A) 3 operating or plying the vehicle, installments were to be paid by the petitioner. But, since that had already been taken possession by the second respondent, the petitioners are denied the source to raise funds to pay the amount. R2 has already initiated action for recovering the balance amount by attaching the movable property of the petitioner. In the light of what has been stated above I find that, as the dispute is purely civil in nature, further proceedings in C.C.No:139/2010 would be a sheer abuse of process of Court. In order to secure the ends of justice, I find, the aforesaid C.C.No:139/2010 is to be quashed. This petition is allowed. Further proceedings in C.C. No:139/2010 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thrissur, is quashed. N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE jjj