THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.5307 of 2010 (Dated : 21-11-2011) Between: Mr. B.Narasimha Murthy S/o Nagaraja Char, ...Petitioner/A-5 A n d State of A.P., rep. through its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.5307 of 2010 ORDER: This Criminal Petition has been taken out under Section 482 Cr.P.C., by A-5/B.Narasimha Murthy in Crime No.45 of 2010 of Habeebnagar Police Station, Hyderabad to quash the proceedings therein against him. 2. Respondents 2 to 6 presented a complaint under Sections 190 and 200 of Cr.P.C., before the XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, against S.Vijji and six others including the petitioner herein for the offences under Sections 406, 506, 420, 380, 384, 409 read with 34 IPC. 3. In the complaint, it was inter alia alleged as follows:- The complainants purchased lorries by taking loan from Financier-M/s. Sundaram Finance Limited, Hyderabad. They repaid the entire loan together with excessive charges levied by the said Financier. A-1-S.Vijji, Chairman of the Finance company along with his staff members including A-2 to A-7 harassed the complainant with a mala fide intention to collect excess amounts despite the complainants discharging their liability under the loan agreement. The accused collected five instalments in advance. The accused also collected extra amount of Rs.91,203/- and pressed into service unsocial elements for seizing the vehicles. The accused collected extra amounts from the complainants by levying unnecessary charges as per their will and pleasure. The complainants approached the Reserve Bank of India and made a complaint to the RBI. But the RBI has not taken any action. The accused cheated the complainant in diesel accounts to a tune of Rs.7,20,000/- and so also in respect of tyre account to a tune of Rs.1,00,000/-. The complainant approached the Station House Officer, Punjagutta P.S. But the SHO has not taken the complaint and advised the complainants to approach Habeebnagar P.S. Hence the complainants filed the complaint before the XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 4. The learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate referred the complaint to the Station House Officer, Habeebnagar P.S., under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Thereupon, the S.H.O., Habeebnagar P.S registered a case in Crime No.45 of 2010 for the offences under Sections 406, 506, 420, 380, 384, 409 read with 34 IPC and issued F.I.R. Hence this criminal petition by A-5 B.Narasimha Murthy with a prayer stated supra. 5. Notice to the 2nd respondent came to be ordered on 22-6-2010. The petitioner was directed to take out notice to the 2nd respondent and file proof of service. The petitioner took out notice by registered post acknowledgment due and filed proof of service. Despite notice being served, the 2nd respondent did not choose to enter appearance either in person or through a counsel. 6. Heard Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the material brought on record. 8. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the entire transaction is between the 2nd respondent and the Financier and the petitioners have not done any act in their individual capacity relatable to the loan transaction between the 2nd respondent and the Financier. As per the terms of the contract, the Financier is having right to repossess the vehicle through its agents and therefore, the Financier exercised its right to repossess the vehicles under the terms of the loan agreement. He would further submit that the Financier had approached III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad by filing O.P.No.1339 of 2009 for appointment of Advocate Commissioner for seizure of the vehicles. The 2nd respondent having knowledge of the said O.P proceedings resorted to file the complaint against the employees of the Financier with al false accusations. The grievance of the 2nd respondent-complainant is about collection of excess amounts and this fact is required to be considered by the competent civil Court and therefore, initiation of criminal proceedings amounts to abuse of process of law. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. v. RAJIV DUBEY[1]. In the cited decision, the Supreme Court referred State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal[2] with approval reiterating that where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge, held proceedings initiated before the trial Court stand quashed. 9. I have gone through the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent. The complaint averments have been detailed supra. The grievance of the 2nd respondent-complainant is that the Financier committed breach of terms of the Contract and collected certain amounts in excess of what it is entitled to under the terms of Contract. The Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal (2nd supra), observed as follows:- "108. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a magistrate within the purview of section 155 (2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a magistrate as contemplated under section 155 (2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. " 10. The complaint averments, in my considered view, come under Category (3). The principal grievance of the 2nd respondent- complainant is that the Financier collected certain amounts far in excess of the amounts stipulated in the loan agreement and committed breach of terms of the loan agreement. The dispute between the parties, in my considered view, is predominantly appears to be civil in nature. The Financier- M/s. Sundaram Finance Limited, Punjagutta, Hyderabad has already filed O.P.No.1339 of 2009 for enforcement of its right available under the contract. In the given facts and circumstances, continuance of criminal proceedings against the petitioner amounts to abuse of process of law. 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in Crime No.45 of 2010 of P.S., Habeebnagar P.S., Hyderabad against the petitioner/A-5 alone. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.21-11-2011 RAR [1] (2009) 1 Supreme Court Cases 706 [2] 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335