M/S AU SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED THROUGH VIJAY S/O RAMDAD KAMBLE v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH OFFICER IN CHARGE PS RAJAPETH AMRAVATI AND 2 OTHERS
High Court of Bombay, Nagpur (Criminal)
2025:BHC-NAG:11218
Discusses principles related to interim custody, interpretation of "owner", and High Court's supervisory jurisdiction.
List of Laws: Constitution of India; The Indian Penal Code, 1860; The Code of Criminal Procedure; The Motor Vehicles Act
Legal Discussion:
- Constitution of India: The judgment refers to Article 227 of the Constitution of India, under which the Writ Petition was filed. The petitioner challenged the common order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class and the Additional Sessions Judge. The significance lies in invoking the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to examine the correctness, legality, or propriety of the orders passed by the subordinate courts. This highlights the High Court's role as a guardian of justice, ensuring that lower courts function within their jurisdictional limits and adhere to principles of natural justice. The practical implication is that parties aggrieved by orders of lower courts can approach the High Court for redressal, but the High Court's intervention is usually limited to cases of patent error or jurisdictional defect. The key takeaway is the reaffirmation of the High Court's supervisory role over subordinate courts.
- The Indian Penal Code, 1860: The judgment mentions Sections 420 (cheating), 464 (making a false document), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), and 469 (forgery for purpose of harming reputation) read with Section 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code. These sections were invoked in the complaint filed by the petitioner bank alleging forgery and cheating related to the vehicle's sale. The significance is that the court acknowledges the registration of a criminal case based on these sections, indicating a prima facie case of fraud and forgery. However, the court refrains from delving into the merits of these allegations at the stage of deciding interim custody. The practical implication is that while criminal proceedings are ongoing, the court must balance the interests of all parties involved, including the accused, the complainant, and any bona fide purchasers. The key takeaway is the court's cautious approach in dealing with criminal allegations at the interim stage, focusing instead on possession and ownership for custody decisions.
- The Code of Criminal Procedure: The judgment refers to Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, under which the Magistrate directed the police to register a crime against Ravi Dange. This section empowers a Magistrate to order an investigation by the police when a complaint discloses the commission of a cognizable offense. The judgment also refers to Section 454 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, under which both the petitioner and respondent no.2 filed applications seeking interim custody of the seized vehicle. The significance is that the court acknowledges the procedural framework for initiating a criminal investigation and for dealing with the custody of property seized during such investigation. The practical implication is that the court must follow the procedures laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure when dealing with criminal matters, ensuring fairness and transparency. The key takeaway is the court's adherence to the established legal procedures in handling the criminal case and the related custody dispute.
- The Motor Vehicles Act: The judgment refers to Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, interpreting the definition of "owner" in the context of a hire-purchase agreement. The court relies on the Supreme Court's judgment in Vaibhav Jain v. Hindustan Motors Pvt. Ltd. to emphasize that the definition of "owner" is not limited to the categories specified in Section 2(30) and that possession or control of the vehicle plays a vital role. The significance is that the court adopts a broader interpretation of "owner" to include persons who have effective control over the vehicle, even if they are not the registered owners. This interpretation has significant implications for determining liability in cases of accidents or other legal disputes involving motor vehicles. The practical implication is that financiers or other parties who exercise control over a vehicle may be held liable, even if they are not the registered owners. The key takeaway is the court's emphasis on the importance of possession and control in determining ownership under the Motor Vehicles Act. The judgment also mentions Section 165 and 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, relating to claims for compensation and compulsory insurance, respectively.