1 2wps.175.2068 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.175 OF 2010 in CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2068 OF 2008 Indusind Bank Ltd ..Applicant Vs The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents with CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.182 OF 2010 in CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2069 OF 2010 Indusind Bank Ltd .. Applicant vs The State of Maharashtra & ors.. Respondents .. Mr.A.B.Desai for Applicant Mrs.V.R.Bhonsale APP for Respondent-State CORAM : N.D.DESHPANDE,J. DATED : January 24, 2011 COMMON ORDER 2 2wps.175.2068 P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. These are two Writ petitions filed concerning two vehicles which were financed by the Petitioner-bank to the respondent no.4 who was running a college at the relevant time by collecting fees from respondent no.3. Respondent no.3 is one of the such student. The grievance is very small. Two vehicles were financed to the respondent no.4 and on account of default in payment of EMI those vehicles came back to the Applicant-bank by following due procedure. 2. The respondent No.4 came to be prosecuted separately on a complaint filed by respondent no.3 and the said criminal proceeding is pending at the instance of the EOW, Mumbai who has filed charge sheet against respondent no.4. In the said case, process was issued to the Applicant-bank who had financed bank loan to respondent no.4 and the said process are challenged in these two petitions. It was for production of documents. Both Petitions were heard and disposed of by this Court by order 3 2wps.175.2068 dated 5.12.2008 and notice under section 91 of Cr.P.C. is quashed by directing undertaking from the applicant that they would not create third party rights without permission of the Court. 3. After going through the challenge in the two Petitions and understanding the dispute, I find that the applicant-bank had nothing to do with such a complaint filed by respondent no.3 and prosecution done by EOW, Mumbai. They advanced some finance for purchasing vehicles to respondent no.4 as per the terms and conditions. Those vehicles were hypothecated and on default being committed, the vehicles came back to the Applicant-bank. There is nothing on record to show that these vehicles were purchased from the collections of fees by the Institute namely respondent no.4. The applicant-bank are therefore,entitled to recover loan amount by selling these vehicles. The vehicles are not involved in any other offence. So liberty is given to the applicant- bank to dispose of the vehicles in question,account for it and submit a report to the EOW, Mumbai and to the trial Court. The parties namely respondent no.4 and applicant- 4 2wps.175.2068 bank shall submit the Statement of account. 3. Applicants shall be at liberty to adopt any other remedy as are available in law for recovery of any amount from respondent no.4. The Applicants also undertake to cooperate with the investigation by EOW, Mumbai by filing necessary report and documents in the pending proceeding. With the above observations, Applications are disposed of. N.D.DESHPANDE, J