IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07.08.2009 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN Crl.O.P.No.17653 of 2007 and M.P.No.1 of 2007 S. Jayakumar .. Petitioner Versus 1.The State by Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Sathuvachari, Vellore-9. 2.The Branch Manager, Shriram Investments Limited, Landmark Building, II Floor, 20/B, First East Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Vellore-6. .. Respondents Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to call for the records of the case in C.C.No.71 of 2006 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Vellore, Vellore District and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Chandrasekaran (No appearance) For Respondent-1 : Mr.R.Muniappa Raj Govt.Advocate (Crl.side) For Respondent-2 : Mr. K.V. Sridharan ORDER The petitioner has filed the above Criminal Original Petition to call for the records of the case in C.C.No.71 of 2006 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Vellore District and quash the same. 2. The petitioner's contention is that he is a practising advocate of Vellore Bar. The petitioner submitted that one V.S.Sudharsanam availed a financial assistance from the 2nd respondent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ / Shriram Investments Limited to the tune of Rs.1,60,000/-, on 12.12.2000, in order to purchase a transport vehicle, registration AP 26-T-2139. For the said loan, one Tulasiraman was guarantor. The said Sudharsanam is alleged to have remitted a sum of Rs.22,000/- and is further alleged to have disposed of the hypothecated vehicle after dismantling it. So, the 2nd respondent/Shriram Investments Limited, made a complaint with the 1st respondent/Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, who registered a case under Section 420 of IPC. 3. The petitioner further alleged that the said Sudharsanam was attached as a Clerk in the petitioner's office but subsequently he was removed from office. Sudharsanam was apprehended by the 1st respondent in connection with the case. He is alleged to have given a complaint to the police, implicating the petitioner, stating that Sudarsanam is the Binami Owner of the said vehicle. Further, Sudarsanam has stated that the vehicle was dismantled and sold part by part by the petitioner. On the basis of the complaint, the petitioner has been arrayed as the 3rd accused. He has been granted anticipatory bail. Investigation has been completed and charge sheet has also been filed in this case. The petitioner has been summoned to appear in this case. The petitioner further submitted that because of the pendency of the criminal case, his reputation, credit and local standing amongst the members of the bar and public have been affected. Hence, he prefers this application to quash this proceedings. 4. The prosecution case was in the Crime No.6 of 2004, there are three accused. The petitioner is the 3rd accused in the said crime. The petitioner was running the Lorry bearing registration No.AP 26-T 2139 in the name of A-1, Sudarsanam. The lorry was mortgaged with the financier. The same was financed by the 2nd respondent herein. The finance company had advanced a loan of Rs.1,60,000/-. Due amount paid to the financier is Rs.22,000/-. The balance amount of Rs.1,87,600/- has to be paid to the finance company. Hence, the finance company approached for seizing the vehicle as per hire purchase agreement. It was found that all the accused, immediately after obtaining loan, had dismantled the said lorry and sold all its parts. Now, the lorry is not available. Hence, the respondent police registered a case on an alleged offence under Section 420 r/w 34 of IPC. Supporting the prosecution case, seven witnesses are mentioned. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the contention of the petitioner and the case of the prosecution and arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the State, the Court is of the view that the subject Lorry bearing No.AP 26 T 2139 is not available at present. This fact is not disputed by the petitioner. So, adjudication is necessary in the interest of Justice. Hence, the Court is not warranted to interfere with the Proceedings in C.C.No.71 of 2006 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.III, Vellore. Further, the petition filed by the petitioner in Cr.M.P.No.2 of 2007, wherein https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ he had prayed to dispense with the appearance of the petitioner in Court in C.C.No.71 of 2006, is allowed. The Criminal Original Petition No.17653 of 2007 is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar mps/mra To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.III, Vellore. 2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Sathuvachari, Vellore-9. 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras-104. +1 cc to Mr.K.V.Sridharan, Advocate, SR.No.37442 Crl.O.P.No.17653 of 2007 and M.P.No.1 of 2007 MS {CO} TP/20.8.2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/