Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 303 (MP)

Shyamsundar Yadav v. ICICI Bank Ltd.

2007-03-14

RAJENDRA MENON

body2007
ORDER 1. Inter alia contending that on the complaint made by the petitioner respondent No.5 Superintendent of Police is not taking any action for investigation of the offence and registration of the FIR, petitioner has filed this petition. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he had taken loan from the ICICI Bank Limited and had purchased a vehicle bearing MP07 GA 0102. It is the case of the petitioner that on 22.2.2007 respondents No.3 and 4 have taken away vehicle illegally on the ground that petitioner is not repaying the loan. Inter alia contending that the action of respondents No.3 and 4 amounts to criminal offence, petitioner made complaint to respondent No.5 who has not taken any action, therefore, petitioner wants a direction to be issued for registration of FIR and institute the criminal proceeding. The question involved in this petition is as to whether a writ petition for the said purpose is maintainable and whether a direction can be issued by this Court for registration of a FIR and to conducting investigation in the matter. The question of interference in such a matter by exercising jurisdiction in a petition under Article 226/227 of Constitution has been considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra and others [ 2004 (7) SCC 768 ], it has been held by the Supreme Court that when the information is laid with the police, but no action in that behalf is taken, the complainant is given power under section 190 read with section 200 of the Code to lay the complaint before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence and the Magistrate is required to inquire into the complaint as provided in Chapter XV of the Code. It has been held that a writ petition in such cases cannot be entertained. In para 13 it has been held by Supreme Court that the principle in this regard is well settled by ajudgment rendered in the case of All India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees' Union (Regd.) v. Union of India [ (1996) 11 SCC 582 ], it has been held by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case that writ petition is not a proper remedy and the aggrieved person has to avail remedy available under the Code. This judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre (supra) and All India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees' Union (supra) is again followed in the case of Minu Kumari and another v. State of Bihar and others [ (2006) 4 SCC 359 ] and it has been held that when a specific remedy is provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure writ petition is not maintainable. 3. Keeping in view the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases referred to hereinabove it has to be held that in this case also petitioner has remedy of taking recourse to the procedure contemplated under section 190 read with section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it is not a fit case where jurisdiction under section 226/227 of Constitution required to be invoked. 4. Accordingly in the light of the well settled principles I am not inclined to interfere in the matter, petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to the remedy as indicated hereinabove.