Dismissed

Rajendra Kumar Kalicharan Varma v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Jul 2013APPW/94/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal application concerning a disputed vehicle loan and possession, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay held that it cannot entertain claims for compensation or adjudicate on disputed facts and civil liabilities regarding the vehicle under Section 482 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

The application seeking compensation and amendment lacked merits and was dismissed; the Court would not interfere in disputed facts.

Rajendra Kumar Kalicharan Varma Vs the State of… — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

appw94-12

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

rpa

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.94 OF 2012 IN

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.827 OF 2010 WITH

¶6

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.590 OF 2011

¶7

Rajendra Kumar Kalicharan Verma .. Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents

¶8

Mr. Rajendra Kumar Kalicharan Verma, Applicant present. Ms. V. S. Mhaispurkar, A.P.P.for Respondent No.1 – State. Mr. Y. Mannadiar i/b. M/s. Mannadiar & Co., Advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶9

CORAM : K. U. CHANDIWAL, J.

¶10

DATED : JULY 9, 2013.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

The Applicant/Petitioner, party in person had

¶13

purchased a vehicle by a car loan from respondent no.2. The respondent no.2 financer felt, owing to default in payment of installments, to exercise its right to take charge of the vehicle by legal recourse. The vehicle was traced, however, it was not located.

¶14

2 There was a controversy between respondent no.3

¶15

1/5

¶16

appw94-12

¶17

Bhangdia Fianance and Investment and the petitioner in respect of the very vehicle as respondent no.3 Bhangdia Finance and Investment asserted to have purchased the vehicle from the petitioner. Respondent No.3 lodged a complaint of theft against the petitioner. Respondent no.3 has also asserted of such financial transaction and for possession of the said vehicle.

¶18

3 An application was moved before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pimpari as the vehicle was taken charge by the Pimpari police station. The bank – respondent no.2 also rushed informing the learned Judge of its rights over the vehicle as owner/financer. The learned Judge evaluated available material and directed restoration of the said vehicle to respondent no.2 – Bank.

¶19

4 In Revision Application No.388 of 2009, the learned District Judge on 23^rd July, 2009, hearing the party in person and the respondents therein (Bank), rejected the revision application by rightly holding that any subsequent dealing of the car under charge by ICICI Bank will always subject to rights, interest of the petitioner. This order is questioned by the

¶20

2/5

¶21

appw94-12

¶22

petitioner before this Court.

¶23

5 The scenario of the events referred to above, does

¶24

not indicate any unjust or improper order of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pimpari Court dated 10^th June, 2009 or of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune dated 23^rd July, 2009.

¶25

6 The Petitioner says he has released 22 installments

¶26

and he would not keep balance amount unpaid for getting the vehicle transferred in his name. It may be correct, however, owing to default in payment of installments the vehicle, under the legal authority, is taken charge of by the financer – Respondent No.2.

¶27

7 The Petitioner has a grievance against his advocate who has not diligently participated in the proceedings for his cause. The further grievance is against respondent no.3 Bhangdia Finance having not appeared before this Court instead of several dates and hence according to him separate costs to be saddled vide application No.97 of 2010.

¶28

3/5

¶29

8 So far as laxity or recklessness of the advocate of petitioner is concerned, this Court in entertaining jurisdiction under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure in a case between the petitioner and the Bank, will not be in a position to traverse to that area. Any grievance the petitioner has, it can be resorted to appropriate forum representing the said advocate. Non appearance of respondent no.3, would be at the peril of respondent no.3 for the presence of respondent no.3. This Court would not insist Respondent No.3 to participate, if it does not want.

¶30

9 By criminal application 590 of 2011 amendment in

¶31

writ petition is sought. Entire colour and complexion of the writ petition is sought to be changed by such amendment. One of the ground is for compensation to writ petitioner. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and available material does not permit to entertain payment of compensation. It involves appreciation of evidence, loss and fault, if any to be shouldered by whom. This Court, at this stage, cannot enter into the field of disputed question of facts. The net result is, the

¶32

4/5

¶33

appw94-12

¶34

application seeking costs against the advocate or seeking

¶35

amendment lacks merits.

¶36

(K. U. CHANDIWAL, J.)

¶37

5/5

Rajendra Kumar Kalicharan Varma v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Kumar Kalicharan Varma v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yuvraj Sudhakar Chumbalkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bapi Somnath Roy Vs the State of Maharashtra

Uttamdas Warluji Wankhede Vs Narayan Ramchandr Sorate and Anr.

Meherangiz M. Davar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Badruddin P. Hirani and Anr. Vs Nanji Jivraj Karani and Anr.

Sheroor Mohandas Shetty and Ors. Vs Bharat Mohanlal Suchak and Anr.