IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2010 / 27TH JYAISTHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 503 of 2010() ----------------------------- CMP.3614/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/COMPLAINANT :- -------------------------------------------------------- MR. K.Y. SADIK MOHAMMED, S/O. BAVA YOUSAF, KARIKANAMKUDIYIL HOUSE, MUDAVOOR P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA, PROPRIETOR, M/S KYS MOTORS, KADATHI, MOOVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S)/ACCUSED & STATE :- ------------------------------------------------------ 1. SABU AUGUSTIAN, THE MANAGER, RETAIL ASSETS COLLECTIONS, HDFC BANK LTD., S.L. PLAZA, 4TH FLOOR, PALARIVATTOM, COCHIN. 2. SUJITH PRAKASH, ASSETS COLLECTION, HDFC BANK LTD., 4TH FLOOR, SL PLAZA, PALARIVATTOM, COCHIN. 3. MR. RAVI RAO, THE MANAGER, RETAIL ASSETS COLLECTION, HDFC, BANK LTD., TITANIC BUILDING, 26A, NARAYAN PROPERTIES, CHANDIVIL ANDERI EAST, MUMBAI - 400072 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 503 of 2010 4. MR. RAJA GOPAL RANGANATH, THE RECOVERY HEAD, COMMERCIAL VEHICLES, HDFC BANK LTD., TITANIC BUILDING, OPP SAKI VIHAR ROAD, CANDIVILI, ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAI - 400 072, 5. MR. DHARAN DESAI, THE RECOVERY HEAD, COMMERCIAL VEHICLES, HDFC BANK LTD., TITANIC BUILDING, OPP SAKI VIHAR ROAD, CANDIVILI, ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAI - 400072. 6. ADITHYAPURI, MANAGING DIRECTOR, HDFC BANK LTD., HEAD OFFICE ZANDOS HOUSE, DR. ANNY BESANT ROAD, WORLI, MUMBAI -18, 7. STATE OF KERALA,REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA R7 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.M.R.VENUGOPAL THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: jvt V.K.MOHANAN, J. ----------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.503 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of June 2010 O R D E R Against the rejection of a private complaint, the complainant preferred this revision petition. 2. The case of the complainant is that he had purchased 6 goods carriage vehicles on 30.11.2006 through an auction sale conducted by accused Nos.1 and 2, the Manager and Assistant Collection Officer, HDFC Bank, Palarivattom. The other accused/respondents are the officials of the said bank on various capacities. According to the complainant, originally these vehicles were belonged to one P.P.Johnson and the vehicles were repossessed by the respondents/accused on the default of the repayment of the financial assistance given by the said bank to the said person. It is the further case of the complainant that, the Crl.R.P.No.503 of 2010 : 2 : above vehicles with original R.C.Book were in the name of said P.P.Johnson and according to the complaint the accused person states that the original R.C.Book were surrendered by the R.C.owner and according to the complainant he purchased the vehicles on payment of Rs.25,68,000/- believing the assurance of the accused that there is no issue with the vehicles and he will get the clearance from the concerned authorities. But according to the complainant when he applied for NOC, for transfer of the vehicles, before the Joint R.T.O, he refused to give NOC on the ground that there is a criminal case pending against the said Johnson, the original R.C.owner of the vehicles. According to the complainant, against the above reply from the R.T.O authorities, he approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.27465/2007 seeking a direction to declare that the vehicles are not involved in any case and for further direction to the CBI, directing them to clarify that the vehicles need not be produced before any court below, since Crl.R.P.No.503 of 2010 : 3 : the vehicles are not involved in any other crime. Admittedly, the complainant purchased the above vehicles as a dealer of used vehicles and he has no business of operating the vehicles. The grievance of the complainant is that after the purchase of the vehicles on 30.11.2006 he could not use the vehicles or sale the same. 3. Upon the complaint preferred by the revision petitioner/complainant, he himself was examined as CW1. On the basis of the deposition of the CW1, the complainant and the materials produced by him, the learned Magistrate came into a conclusion that actually the dispute is civil in nature and no criminal liability can be fixed on the respondents in connection with the purchase of the vehicles and thus, the complaint was rejected under Sec.204. 4. The learned counsel submitted that the accused/respondents did not inform the complainant that the original owner of the vehicles has already been involved in criminal case and therefore, the charge against the Crl.R.P.No.503 of 2010 : 4 : accused under Sections 408, 420, 120B r/w 34 of I.P.C. will lie. 5. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the order impugned. From the facts which elaborately narrated in the impugned order, it can be seen that the complainant voluntarily involved in an auction sale procedure with respect to the sales of the vehicles which were repossessed by the respondents, who are the financial agency and who extended financial assistance to the original owner of the vehicles and the vehicles were repossessed due to the failure on the part of the loanee/hire purchaser. According to the complainant he has no case that the accused have persuaded the complainant to participate in the auction or they have suppressed any material facts from the notice of the complainant with respect to the vehicles in question. Now the case of the complainant is that the accused/respondents did not Crl.R.P.No.503 of 2010 : 5 : disclose to him that the R.C. owner of the vehicles involved in criminal cases. When the vehicles put in auction sale normally what expected to disclose is the details with respect to those vehicles and the auctioneer/the seller, not bound to disclose the details of the original owner of the vehicles and his antecedents and back history. It is also relevant to note that the above reasoning seems to be approved and accepted by the complainant by his prayer and averments in the writ petition filed before this Court. As correctly pointed out by the learned Magistrate what sought in the writ petition was for a declaration that the vehicles are not involved in any case and the further direction sought was that the CBI be directed to clarify that the vehicles need not be produced before any court of law since the vehicles are not involved in any crime. Thus, it is crystal clear that the vehicles which purchased by the complainant from the respondents/accused, even according to the complainant, are not involved in any crime. The Crl.R.P.No.503 of 2010 : 6 : learned Magistrate while rejecting the complaint has categorically observed that it cannot be imagine that the accused were aware, when the auction sale was conducted on 30.11.2006 and when the vehicles thus sold to the complainant that a criminal case was pending against P.P.Johnson, the original owner of the vehicles and Joint R.T.O would refuse to issue NOC on the ground that a criminal case was pending against the original R.C.owner. Therefore, I find no illegality or irregularity on the finding of the learned Magistrate that absolutely there is no materials to show that the accused had dishonest or fraudulent intention to cheat the complainant or dishonestly or fraudulently induced the complainant to purchase the above vehicles in an auction sale conducted on 30.11.2006. It is also pertinent to note that the vehicles in question sold in a public auction and for that sole reason it cannot be hold for a moment that accused maintain an intention to cheat the complainant. Crl.R.P.No.503 of 2010 : 7 : In the light of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the learned Magistrate is perfectly legal in rejecting the complaint and accordingly this revision petition is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE. Jvt