ORDER: Crl.O.P.No.15027 of 1999 has been filed against the respondents i.e., (1) Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, St.Thomas Mount, Chennai, and (2) M/s.Dugar Finance India Limited, represented by its Assistant Manager, Vijayalakshmi, Chennai, praying for a direction to the respondents to handover possession of two vehicles. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of this petition, the petitioner M/s.Ujjwallaa Foundations Limited, Chennai has made the following averments: The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act and the registered owner of vehicles two deluxe buses bearing Registration No.APO.2/V.2574 and APO.2/V.3213. The petitioner obtained permits from Road Transport Authority for running the buses between the routes specified. The registration certificate for both the vehicles stand in the name of the petitioner. The second respondent filed a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate II, Ponneri in Crl.M.P.No.4086 of 1998 on 20.9.1998 stating that the petitioner company has dismantled two buses mentioned above and sold some parts and misappropriated the sale proceeds and thereby cheated the second respondent, that therefore they have committed offence under Secs.406 and 420, I.P.C. The second respondent prayed for a suitable direction be issued to the first respondent Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, St.Thomas Mount to register a case and investigate the alleged offences. About ten months later, the petitioner again filed a petition on 2.7.1999 purporting to be under Sec.93, Crl.P.C. and praying for issue of a warrant directing the Superintendent of Police, Anantapur, Andhra Pradesh to search and seize the abovesaid two vehicles, namely Deluxe buses bearing Registration Nos. APO.2/V.2574 and APO.2/V.3213. The Judicial Magistrate II, Ponneri on the said application passed an order on 2.7.1999 itself directing the Superintendent of Police, Anantapur, Andhra Pradesh to search, seize and produce two buses referred to above on or before 31.7.1999 without issuing any summons under Sec.91, Crl.P.C. The order passed by the learned Magistrate directing the. Superintendent of Police, Anantapur, Andhra Pradesh to seize two buses is an illegal order passed without application of mind and the learned Magistrate has been misdirected by the second respondent who filed a false complaint and a petition before the said court. Superintendent of Police, Anantapur, Andhra Pradesh to seize two buses is an illegal order passed without application of mind and the learned Magistrate has been misdirected by the second respondent who filed a false complaint and a petition before the said court. The Inspector of Police, D.C.B., St.Thomas Mount, Chennai also directed two constables to accompany the petitioner, namely the second respondent and with the help of Superintendent of Police, Anantapur, Andhra Pradesh, seized the vehicles above stated at Puttapurthi on 5.7.1999 and the seizure was effected from one Babu, an employee of the petitioner company at Puttapurthi, from whom both of them have obtained acknowledgment to the effect that the vehicles have been taken by them in pursuance of the warrant and in running condition. The acknowledgment and the admission made by the respondents themselves would show that the allegation made in the private complaint that the petitioner has dismantled the buses and sold parts to third parties are not true because they themselves admittedly took two buses which were in running condition. The buses were seized from the petitioner and were handed over to the second respondent by the first respondent at Madras. Aggrieved at the illegal actions taken by the second respondent, the petitioner came to the Court of Judicial Magistrate II, Ponneri and fifed a petition under Sec.457, Crl.P.C. praying for a direction to return the seized vehicles to the custody of the petitioner, But the learned Magistrate who has earlier issued a warrant for seizure has merely returned the petition with an endorsement that the vehicles were not available before the court because they are not produced by the police. The vehicles have been thus fraudulently and illegally seized from the lawful possession of the petitioner and handed over to the second respondent. The petitioner has purchased the vehicles under two hire purchase agreements with the second respondent Dugar Finance India Limited, and they have paid a sum of Rs.22.92 lakhs which is more than 3/4th of the total value of hire purchase money. The dispute is only a civil dispute, but suppressing all these facts and by making false representations, the second respondent has asked seizure of vehicles from the petitioner for which the learned Magistrate has issued an order without application of his mind. No notice has been sent to the petitioner before issuing warrant. The dispute is only a civil dispute, but suppressing all these facts and by making false representations, the second respondent has asked seizure of vehicles from the petitioner for which the learned Magistrate has issued an order without application of his mind. No notice has been sent to the petitioner before issuing warrant. The second respondent originally preferred a complaint on 20.9.1998 and after lapse of nearly ten months filed Crl.M.P.No. 217 of 1999 and has obtained an illegal warrant of seizure. Vehicles are now under the custody of the second respondent who has obtained the same illegally by making false allegations in the court. The petitioner is put to much loss and sufferings because he has to spent daily heavy amounts for taking persons from Puttapurthi to a site where a project work is carried on by the petitioner. Obtaining of warrant after filing a false complaint is clear abuse of process of law indulged by the second respondent and the first respondent has colluded with him. Even as per the search warrant which was issued without application of mind, the vehicles after seizure must have been produced before the Magistrate. They were not produced and they were handed over to the second respondent. Atleast when this petitioner filed a petition before the Judicial Magistrate II, Ponneri, the court ought to have issued a direction calling upon the police and the second respondent to produce the vehicles before him and should have adjudicated upon the petition filed by this petitioner. Learned Judicial Magistrate II, Ponneri exercised the power which he was not possessed of, but later declined to exercise his jurisdiction without application of mind. The petitioner is incurring loss at the rate of Rs.2,000 per day because of the high handedness action of the second respondent. Therefore, this petition is filed with a prayer to direct the second respondent to handover possession of two deluxe buses bearing Registration No.APO.2/V 2574 and APO.2/V.3213 in the same condition at the time when they were seized. 3. Additional Public Prosecutor took notice on behalf of the first respondent and notice was also taken to the second respondent and a counsel has entered appearance on behalf of the second respondent. 4. 3. Additional Public Prosecutor took notice on behalf of the first respondent and notice was also taken to the second respondent and a counsel has entered appearance on behalf of the second respondent. 4. Along with the main petition, the petitioner has filed Crl.M.P.No.8425 of 1998 praying for interim direction pending disposal of the Crl.O.P. directing the first respondent police to seize the said vehicles from the second respondent and also pass appropriate orders for the interim disposal of the vehicles. 5. A.Ramamurthi, J. by an order dated 8.10.1999 has passed an interim order in Crl.M.P.No.8425 of 1999 directing the first respondent Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, St.Thomas Mount, Chennai to seize both the vehicles and produce before the concerned Magistrate and keep them under the safe custody until further orders. 6. M/s.Dugar Finance India Limited, the second respondent filed Crl.M.P.No.10430 of 1999 alleging that the company has extended finance in respect of two vehicles referred to in the petition to the petitioner under two hire purchase agreements, that the petitioner has to pay monthly hire charges as per the schedule in the agreements, that there was default on the part of the petitioner in payment of monthly hire charges, that the second respondent has only repossessed the vehicles as per the terms of the agreement, that seizure was done on the basis of the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate II, Ponneri, that he is entitled to be in possession of the buses and that there can be stay of operation of the interim order passed in Crl.M.P.No.8425 of 1999. 7. The second respondent also filed Crl.M.P.No.10766 of 1999 to vacate the interim direction granted in Crl.M.P.No.8425 of 1999. 8. The point for consideration is as to whether the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.15027 of 1999 is entitled for the direction prayed for? 9.The points: Parties are referred to as they are arrayed in Crl.O.P.No.15027 of 1999. The petitioner and the second respondent have entered into two hire purchase agreements in respect of two buses bearing Registration Nos.APO.2/V.2574 and APO.2/V.3213 and the agreements are dated 3.11.1995. M/s.Dugar Finance India Limited is the owner of the said two buses and the petitioner is the hirer. As per the agreements, the vehicles are to be in possession of the petitioner, who is obliged to pay monthly hire charges to the second respondent. M/s.Dugar Finance India Limited is the owner of the said two buses and the petitioner is the hirer. As per the agreements, the vehicles are to be in possession of the petitioner, who is obliged to pay monthly hire charges to the second respondent. The petitioner has bound himself liable to pay monthly instalments and the period of hire purchase agreement in case of one bus is 35 months and in case of the other bus a total period of hire 18 months. Until and unless the last instalment is made, the petitioner will be only a hirer of the vehicles in possession of the vehicles and the ownership will rest with the second respondent, namely, M/s.Dugar Finance India Limited. It is not in dispute that Registration Certificate for both the vehicles also have been issued in the name of the petitioner under hire purchase agreements with the second respondent. Legal position flowing from the hire purchase agreements admittedly entered between the parties is that the second respondent is the owner of the vehicles and the petitioner is the hirer entitled to be in possession of the vehicles and in case of default, the second respondent will be entitled to exercise his option of re-possession. So, the rights and obligations of the parties arising under the agreements cannot be disputed and it is only a right given to the second respondent to re-possess the vehicle in case of default committed by the petitioner. 10. It is also not in dispute that under the hire purchase agreements executed by the petitioner, he has undertaken to keep the vehicles in running condition and has further undertaken that he shall not sell the vehicles or mortgage it. The agreements also provide for re-possession of these two vehicles in case of default in payment of monthly instalments or hire charges. So, while the petitioner is entitled to be in possession of the vehicles and make use of the same, on obligation is cast upon him to pay monthly hire charges to the owner, namely the second respondent. The second respondent has reserved for himself the right to re-possess the vehicles in case of default. It is now alleged that the petitioner has committed default and that the second respondent has got right of re-possessing the vehicles. The second respondent has reserved for himself the right to re-possess the vehicles in case of default. It is now alleged that the petitioner has committed default and that the second respondent has got right of re-possessing the vehicles. The petitioner also does not dispute that entire money due under the hire purchase agreements has not been paid by him even though he would claim that 3/4th value of the agreements has been already paid to the owner. If only the second respondent has chosen to proceed and re-possess the vehicle for any default committed by the petitioner, nobody can take exception to it. But, the re-possession has to be done only by the second respondent and it is a civil right to be enforced by him even without intervention of the court. But, the second respondent will have only the right to re-possess or right to proceed against the petitioner for repossession and or for recovery of the money due under the hire purchase agreements from the petitioner. 11. It cannot be now stated by the second respondent that he has re-possessed the vehicle only in conformity with the hire purchase agreements entered by himself and the petitioner. A feeble argument was made to that effect stating that re-possession has been done by the second respondent independently without enforcing the warrant obtained from the Judicial Magistrate II, Ponneri. But, this is stated for the first time by the second respondent only with a view to wriggle out of the situation in which he finds himself. I will be able to demonstrate that even though the second respondent is entitled to repossession of these two vehicles because the petitioner has committed default, his present possession is illegal in view of the manner in which the second respondent has obtained possession. It is rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the second respondent has actually taken the criminal court for a ride and the learned Judicial Magistrate II, Ponneri without application of mind has allowed himself to be used by the second respondent when he issued a warrant. 12. The facts are that the second respondent filed a private complaint on 20.9.1998 under Sec.200, Crl.P.C. in the Court of Judicial Magistrate II, Ponneri against the petitioner impleading him as an accused and alleging commission of certain offences under the Indian Penal Code. 12. The facts are that the second respondent filed a private complaint on 20.9.1998 under Sec.200, Crl.P.C. in the Court of Judicial Magistrate II, Ponneri against the petitioner impleading him as an accused and alleging commission of certain offences under the Indian Penal Code. In the complaint filed by the second respondent, an allegation is made to the effect that the petitioner who is impleaded as an accused therein has dismantled the vehicles and sold parts of the vehicles to third parties and thereby committed offences of cheating and breach of trust. In fact the complaint was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate II, Ponneri alleging commission of offences under Secs.406 and 420, I.P.C. There is no question of Sec.420, I.P.C. coming into play because the necessary ingredients to constitute an offence under Sec.420, I.P.C. are that the victim should have been made to part with the article on account of deception practised on him. Even according to the complainant at the time when he filed the complaint or at the time of alleged commission of offences, the possession of vehicles was not with the complainant but was with the petitioner that too under hire purchase agreements admittedly entered into between the parties. So, it is not as if that the second respondent was made to part with the vehicles due to any deception or fraud played on him. The second respondent being owner of the vehicles has parted with two vehicles even according to him as per the hire purchase agreements. Therefore, there is no question of parting with possession of vehicles due to any deception played by the petitioner. 13. No doubt the second respondent being the owner, the vehicles were handed over to the possession of the petitioner and the petitioner’s obligation is to pay monthly hire charges. There is also a condition in the agreements that the petitioner shall not sell, mortgage or dismantle the vehicles entrusted to him. 13. No doubt the second respondent being the owner, the vehicles were handed over to the possession of the petitioner and the petitioner’s obligation is to pay monthly hire charges. There is also a condition in the agreements that the petitioner shall not sell, mortgage or dismantle the vehicles entrusted to him. So, if contrary to the agreement, if the petitioner has fraudulently or with intent to enrich himself unlawfully sells the vehicle or mortgages the vehicle or make it subject to getting further finance and if the second respondent is deprived of his right of repossession of the vehicle, the petitioner can be stated to have committed an offence of Sec.406, I.P.C. It is only with a view to bring this Sec.406, I.P.C., an averment even though false is made in the private complaint by the second respondent to the effect that the petitioner has dismantled the vehicles and has sold the parts to third parties. So, the specific averment made by the second respondent in his private complaint made before the Judicial Magistrate II, Ponneri is to the effect that the petitioner/ accused has dismantled the vehicles and sold parts of the vehicles to third parties. If the second petitioner has believed these assertions made by him, he must have asked for seizure of those sold vehicles or parts from third parties to whom the petitioner is alleged to have sold. But, strangely the warrant asked for by the second respondent is to seize the vehicles and handover the same to himself from out of the petitioner. So, a reading of the complaint filed by the second respondent before the Judicial Magistrate II, Ponneri and the subsequent relief prayed for him when he wanted a search warrant, would have convinced anybody that the allegations made are false. Perhaps it is for this reason, the second respondent did not pray for seizure of vehicles on 20.9.1998, when he filed the complaint before the learned Magistrate in Crl.M.P.No.4086 of 1998. If really the petitioner/ accused has sold parts of the vehicles entrusted to him after dismanting the same, there should have been an urgency also on the part of the second respondent to ask for seizure of these parts from third parties to whom the petitioner is alleged to have sold. If really the petitioner/ accused has sold parts of the vehicles entrusted to him after dismanting the same, there should have been an urgency also on the part of the second respondent to ask for seizure of these parts from third parties to whom the petitioner is alleged to have sold. But, while making certain allegations just to make it appear as if some criminal offences have been committed, no petition for seizure or no warrant was sought for when the second respondent filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate II, Ponneri. 14. While the complaint was filed on 20.9.1998 and that too praying for a direction to forward the same to the first respondent, Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, St.Thomas Mount, Chennai, after nearly ten months, he filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.217 of 1999 on 2.7.1999 and prayed for a search warrant to be issued favouring the Superintendent of Police, Anantapur District in Andhra Pradesh for seizure of these two vehicles. While the case of the second respondent in the private complaint is that the vehicles have been dismantled and parts have been clandestinely sold to third parties, the prayer in Crl.M.P.No.217 of 1999 filed after ten months is for seizure of these two vehicles from the petitioner. 15. It is unfortunate that the learned Magistrate has allowed himself to be misguided and without application of his judicial mind has issued the warrant prayed for directing the Superintendent of Police to go and seize the vehicles and to produce the same before him on or before 31.7.1999. Learned Magistrate has not applied his mind even though it is stated in the order that he has read the original documents filed by the second respondent and he was satisfied which made him to issue the warrant. If any documents are perused by the learned Magistrate, it must be only the hire purchase agreements entered between the petitioner and the second respondent as early as 1995. If the learned Magistrate has read the agreements, he would have come to know that it is open to the second respondent to go and seize the vehicles by himself and no order is necessary for effecting seizure. In fact a reading of the hire purchase agreements would have convinced the Magistrate that the criminal court has no part to play in enforcing the rights guaranteed under the agreements. In fact a reading of the hire purchase agreements would have convinced the Magistrate that the criminal court has no part to play in enforcing the rights guaranteed under the agreements. The criminal court ought to have directed the complainant, namely the second respondent to go and seek remedy before the civil court or to exercise the option of seizure of vehicles provided for in the agreements by himself. But, without applying his mind, the learned Magistrate has issued a warrant directing the Superintendent of Police, Anantapur, Andhra Pradesh to go and seize the vehicles form the possession of the petitioner. 16. The vehicles were stationed in the office of the petitioner at Puttapurthi. The permit obtained by the petitioner would show that he has obtained permit for plying these two vehicles on a specified route in Anantapur district between Puttapurthi and Workspot of the petitioner and the permit is valid till 2001. Permits are obtained by the petitioner to be effective for a period of five years. In the permit also the address given by the petitioner is at Puttapurthi where he got an office. So, when a search and seizure was prayed for by the second respondent, the learned Magistrate ought to have known that the petitioner is having the vehicles only in the place where they are plying in accordance with the permits and therefore there is no question of any stealthy arrangement or question of dismanting and stealing the parts. Strangely in the petition filed by the second respondent in Crl.M.P.No.217 of 1999 he did not make any mention about the petitioner having dismantled the buses or having sold the parts to third parties. As already pointed out if components of the buses have been sold to third parties clandestinely as alleged by the second respondent, the search warrant should have been obtained for getting those parts from third parties and warrant should have been obtained by the second respondent in respect of the dismantled vehicles which could have been found stationary in any of the premises of the petitioner. But, there is absolutely no mention in the affidavit filed in support of the petitioner for search warrant to the effect that the petitioner has dismantled the buses or sold parts of the same to third parties. Merely a warrant was asked for seizure of two vehicles from the possession of the petitioner. But, there is absolutely no mention in the affidavit filed in support of the petitioner for search warrant to the effect that the petitioner has dismantled the buses or sold parts of the same to third parties. Merely a warrant was asked for seizure of two vehicles from the possession of the petitioner. In fact in such warrant it is stated that the petitioner has failed to pay monthly hire charges or monthly instalments. In only the Magistrate has looked into the hire purchase agreements, he could have found that if the allegations are true, the second respondent will be entitled to go and seize the vehicle by himself and he could have only asked for help or assistance from the police for which he could have approached the civil court and not the criminal court. Therefore, while the complaint makes somewhat vague reference to commission of criminal offences, the second respondent has unashamedly admitted the failure of the petitioner to pay due when he filed the petition for seizure and search warrant. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Magistrate has allowed himself to be misguided and has acted without jurisdiction and has exercised powers which he ought not to have done. So, by playing fraud upon the court, the vehicles have been seized form the petitioner through the obliging hand of a Magistrate and therefore there can be no two opinions with regard to the fact that seizured of the vehicles from the petitioner is unlawful and it is clear abuse of process of criminal court. 17. The fact that the second respondent himself acknowledged that two vehicles were seized from the petitioner in running condition is proof enough that the petitioner has not committed any criminal offences. There is no question of any breach of trust or cheating. The vehicles were in possession of the petitioner only because they were entrusted to him as a result of hire purchase agreements entered between the petitioner and the second respondent. The petitioner at the most is only a defaulting party to the agreements and to enforce the agreements, the second respondent ought to have approached the civil court and not the criminal court. No offences have been made out. The petitioner at the most is only a defaulting party to the agreements and to enforce the agreements, the second respondent ought to have approached the civil court and not the criminal court. No offences have been made out. The offences mentioned in the private complaint were purposely made to make it appear as if the petitioner has committed offence of Sec.406, I.P.C. which even on a bare scrutiny on the complaint would have enabled the Magistrate to see through. But, the learned Magistrate has unfortunately not applied his mind and it is not even known as to whether the Magistrate has forwarded the complaint under Sec.156(3), Crl.P.C. for registering a case. 18. It is also not known whether the first respondent/Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, St.Thomas Mount has conducted investigation or enquired any witnesses much less the petitioner. During the course of investigation if the fist respondent felt the necessity of making a seizure, the subject matter of the crime, he must have come forward with a petition to seek a warrant from the Magistrate. But, the first respondent has stood behind the second respondent, who has dated to come and file a petition for issuance of search warrant when he has no locus standi. Learned Magistrate without adverting to all these facts, has simply issued a warrant as a result of which unfortunately the petitioner has been deprived of use of the vehicles which he is lawfully entitled to. Even at this stage, I would like to point out that the second respondent would have been perfectly justified in repossessing the vehicles if only he has chosen to exercise the power conferred on him as per the two hire purchase agreements in case of default. But, even then he could have seized the vehicles after foreclosing the loan and after giving notice to the petitioner calling upon him to pay the dues as per the agreements. But, no notice of such demand or foreclosure of the agreements were made by the second respondent and strangely only after accomplishing his object by taking for a ride the criminal court, the second respondent has issued a notice to the petitioner stating that he has re-possessed the vehicle and demands a sum of Rs.3 lacks from the petitioner claiming the said sum to be due from him under the hire purchase agreements. 19. 19. The second respondent has committed a fraud not only on the criminal court but also on the petitioner and this becomes obvious from a reading of this notice which has been sent to the petitioner on 6.7.1999 wherein absolutely there is no mention about the criminal proceedings initiated by him before the Judicial Magistrate II, Ponneri. In this notice a fraudulent attempt is made by the second respondent to make it appear as if seizure has been effected by himself by virtue of the provisions in the agreement which is totally false, the vehicles were seized by the warrant issued, signed and sealed by the Judicial Magistrate II, Ponneri and it was given to the Superintendent of Police, Anantapur, Andhra Pradesh to execute the warrant and hand over the vehicles to the first respondent who has clandestinely handed over two buses to the second respondent. 20. The first respondent and the Superintendent of Police, Anantapur also have committed act of illegality in as much as after execution of the warrant entrusted to him the Superintendent of Police must have produced the vehicles before the court as directed by the warrant. In the warrant it is stated that power is granted to the Superintendent of Police, Anantapur, Andhra Pradesh to seize the vehicles and produce the same before the Court, namely the Judicial Magistrate II Ponneri on or before 31.7.1999. Warrant should have been returned by the Superintendent of Police, Anantapur or by the respondents herein who have taken advantage of the warrant issued. Since the police was not a party to Crl.M.P.No.217 of 1999, the second respondent by himself should have collected the warrant from the court which is another act of indiscretion committed by the Judicial Magistrate II, Ponneri. If the learned Magistrate has issued search warrant after being convinced by the reasons given by the second respondent, he ought not to have closed the petition and should have adjourned it to 31.7.1999 to ascertain from the second respondent as to fate of the warrant issued by him. Learned Magistrate ought to have insisted upon return of the warrant either after execution or non-execution the petition ought to have been adjourned to 31.7.1999 because that was the date by which the direction was issued to the police to execute and produce the vehicles before him. Learned Magistrate ought to have insisted upon return of the warrant either after execution or non-execution the petition ought to have been adjourned to 31.7.1999 because that was the date by which the direction was issued to the police to execute and produce the vehicles before him. But, the learned Magistrate after issuing the warrant has chosen to be inactive and not pursued the warrant issued by him. The first respondent police has accompanied the second respondent to Andhra Pradesh and they have secured the services of the Superintendent of Police, Anantapur to seize the vehicles. The Superintendent of Police, Anantapur and the first respondent, Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, St.Thomas Mount have executed the warrant and seized the vehicles and they must have produced them before the court which has issued the warrant which they miserably failed. The Magistrate has also failed in his duty in as much as he has not directed the police to return the warrant either after execution or even in case it was not executed. The matter does not end here. 21. The petitioner has been taken by surprise because by making use of the warrant, he has been dispossessed of two buses which he is entitled to be in possession, which he lawfully obtained. Therefore, he immediately came to the court which deprived him of the use of the vehicles and filed a petition praying for return of vehicles stating that he has not committed any offences, that seizure is unlawful and that he must be restored possession of the vehicles to which he is entitled. The Magistrate who has chosen to issue warrant exercising his power where he had no jurisdiction, strangely failed to exercise his powers when the petitioner filed the petition for re-possession of the vehicle from the court. Learned Magistrate has simply returned the petition filed by the petitioner with an endorsement that the above said vehicles have not been produced before the court. So, atleast when the affected party, namely the petitioner who is made as an accused in the private complaint previously filed by the second respondent, comes and files a petition praying for restoration of the vehicles which he is unlawfully deprived of the Magistrate has chosen to close his eyes and returned the petition stating that the vehicles are not produced before the court by the police. 22. 22. If the learned Magistrate has taken the petition on file and has issued notice to the respondents and to the Superintendent of Police, Anantapur calling upon them to produce the vehicles seized in pursuance of the warrant issued by the Court, one cannot find fault with the learned Magistrate because it is open to him to say that he was convinced with regard to averments filed for issuing the warrant. But, the learned Magistrate himself has chosen to return the petition without even asking the concerned persons to return the warrant or to produce the vehicles before the court after which he could have passed further orders after adjudication. This silence on the part of the Magistrate is also significant and the learned Magistrate cannot taken the plea that the warrant has been obtained from him by wrong or false representation. Unfortunately the criminal court itself was used and the petitioner became a victim of a scheme of fraud played by the second respondent actively assisted by the first respondent, Inspector of Police D.C.B., St. Thomas Mount. So, it is only in fitness of things that the petitioner must be restored possession of the vehicles which have been taken away from him unlawfully and through machination of the second respondent who has also made the learned Magistrate to pass an illegal order. 23. The submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent that he is entitled to re-possession of the vehicles in case of default as provided for in the hire purchase agreement is no answer to the averments made by the petitioner which has clearly established an act of fraud on the part of the second respondent. The second respondent must have only approached the civil court if he was not able to exercise his right of re-possession by himself. On the other hand by making averments which have been proved false, the petitioner has been deprived of his valuable right of possession of vehicles and therefore, the injustice done to him which was the direct result of the warrant of the criminal court, this court must act to restore the possession of the vehicles first to the petitioner. It will be still open to the second respondent to take appropriate steps by having recourse to civil court to settle his claims against the petitioner. It will be still open to the second respondent to take appropriate steps by having recourse to civil court to settle his claims against the petitioner. Therefore, I direct the second respondent to return two vehicles whose registration numbers are given above and the first respondent is directed to go and seize the vehicles from the second respondent or anybody claiming under the second respondent and they shall produce the same before the Judicial Magistrate II, Ponneri who is directed to handover the same to the petitioner after obtaining acknowledgment from him. 24. The petitions is allowed and the first respondent is directed to seize the vehicles wherever they are found either with the second respondent or with anybody claiming under him and shall produce the same before the Judicial Magistrate II, Ponneri, who is directed to handover the same to the petitioner and both the respondents are directed to report compliance before this court by 14,3.2000. 25. In the result, Crl.O.P.No.15027 of 1999 is allowed. Crl.M.P.No.10766 of 1999 is dismissed and Crl.M.P.No.8425 of 1999 is closed.