http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  267 of 2007

PETITIONER: MANAGER, I.C.I.C.I. BANK LTD

RESPONDENT: PRAKASH KAUR & ORS

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/02/2007

BENCH: AR. Lakshmanan & Altamas Kabir

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) 15/2007)  

ALTAMAS KABIR,J. Leave granted.         This appeal has been filed by the Manager, I.C.I.C.I. Bank  Ltd. against the order dated 7th December, 2006, passed by the  Allahabad High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition  No.11210/2006 disposing  of the petition with a direction upon  the S.S.P. Allahabad, to ensure the registration of a case on the  basis of   Annexure VII to the Writ Petition and its investigation  by a competent  police officer. Before adverting to the subject-matter of the writ petition,  it may be pointed out that in the writ petition, the writ  petitioner has chosen to implead as respondents, not only the  Union of India and other police authorities of Uttar Pradesh but  also the President/Chairman/Managing Director of the I.C.I.C.I.  Bank, the General Manager, Loans, I.C.I.C.I. Bank, Branch  Sardar Patel Marg, Civil Lines, Allahabad and M/s. Kartik  Associates, Banaras Automobiles, Kodopur, Ram Nagar,  Varanasi, through its authorised  Goonda Officers and Goonda  Employees and  Institutions created against the law for doing  work and persons of  the  Institutes, Criminals to do work for  I.C.I.C.I. Bank.    The subject matter of the writ petition relates to a loan  taken by the writ petitioner from the  I.C.I.C.I. Bank, Allahabad  Branch for purchase of a truck.  It appears that the writ  petitioner defaulted in payment of the instalments  and  in  terms of the  agreement entered  into between the writ  petitioner and the Bank, the  writ petitioner’s truck was taken  possession of by the bank authorities by use of force on 13th  July, 2006.  It also appears that the writ petitioner requested  the Chief Manager (Loans), I.C.I.C.I.Bank, Sardar Patel Marg,  Civil Lines, Allahabad, for release of the truck which was alleged  to have been forcibly taken possession of by M/s. Kartik  Associates, acting as the agents of the Bank.  The writ  petitioner appears to have also written to the said agents on  25th July, 2006, requesting them to provide details of the  instructions given to them to seize the petitioner’s truck.         Since the truck was not returned to the writ petitioner, she  caused a legal notice to be served on M/s. Kartik Associates but  the   same was returned unserved as having been refused.         The writ petitioner contended that the Bank and its  officials had systematically conspired to cheat the writ  petitioner by advancing the loan for purchase of the truck and  accordingly wrote to the police authorities on 3rd/4th  September, 2006, requesting them to register the First  Information Report of the alleged offences punishable under  Sections 120-B, 400/ 403/ 406/ 409/ 417/ 418/ 419/ 420/

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

421/ 422/ 424/ 466/ 467/ 468/ 469/ 571 and 511 IPC.  It  was also urged that since no steps had been taken by the police  authorities on the basis of the application dated 3rd/4th  September, 2006, the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 & 8, being  the Union of India and other officers of the U.P. Police, had  committed offences punishable under Sections 166/ 167/ 212/  217/ 218/ 221/ 120-B IPC and  Section  13 of the Prevention of  Corruption Act.         On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the writ  petitioner, inter\026alia, prayed for a direction upon the respondent  Nos. 1, 2 , 4, 5, 6 7 & 8 to register  a First Information Report in  Civil Lines Police Station, Allahabad, against the respondent  Nos.  9 to 13 and during the period of investigation, to save the  losses of the writ petitioner by recovering the truck along with  all the documents relating to the truck and to hand over the  same to the writ petitioner.  The writ petitioner also prayed for a  writ of mandamus to direct the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to  cancel the licence of I.C.I.C.I. Bank and for other ancillary  reliefs.         On the basis of the aforesaid  writ application, the Division  Bench  of the Allahabad High Court  while disposing of the writ  petition passed the following order:-          "The relief sought in this Writ Petition is for  issuance of a direction for Registration of  the case against the Respondents.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and  the learned AGA for the State and perused  the record.

The contention for the learned counsel for  the petitioner is that a perusal of  Application dated 03/09/06 (Annexure VII)  to the Writ Petition discloses commission of  a cognizable offence.  It was obligatory on  the part of the police to have registered the  case and to proceed with the investigation  but it was not done.  The petitioner is a lady  and she has approached this Court for the  relief sought therein and in support of his  contention he has relied on Ramesh Kumari  vs. State (N.C.T. of Delhi) & Ors., reported in  2006 (1) Crimes 229 (SC) wherein the Apex  Court was pleased to issue direction for  registration of the case.

We have perused the application dated  03.09.2006 which shows the alleged  commission of cognizable offence.   Consequently we direct the SSP Allahabad  to ensure the registration of a case on the  basis of Annexure-VII to the Writ Petition  and its investigation by a competent police  officer.

The Writ Petition stands disposed  off  accordingly."  

       Appearing for the appellant, Mr. Harish Salve, learned  senior advocate with Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior  advocate, submitted that the disputes between the parties, if  any, were entirely of a civil nature relating to the instalments  payable by the writ petitioner on the loan taken by her from the  Bank and accounting of all payments actually made and there

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

was no element of criminal intent in the entire transaction.  Mr.  Salve submitted that while the writ petition had been filed with  the intention of exerting pressure on the Bank and its  authorities to release the truck, the High Court should have  also looked into the pleadings and the frame of the writ petition  before passing the impugned order dated 7th December, 2006.   A glance at the pleadings would make it quite clear that the  dispute involved was of a purely civil nature and did not  warrant any direction as has been given.         However, while make his submissions, Mr. Salve also  conveyed the Bank’s willingness to compromise the matter by  foregoing the interest which was payable on the outstanding  dues which amounted to Rs.1,62,917/-.  Mr. Salve also  submitted that in the event the writ petitioner had any doubts  regarding the payments made by her and credited to her  account, she could sit with the officers of the Bank along with  her agent and verify the accounts and in the event it was found  that any payment made by her had not been credited to her  account, she would be entitled to receive credit for the same.         Mr. Salve submitted that if the writ petitioner paid an  initial sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) only, the  truck could  be returned to her and upon final accounting the  balance principal amount found payable by her could be paid   off in suitable  instalments.         On behalf of the writ petitioner/respondent, it was  contended that the amount said to be due towards principal  was highly  inflated since according to the writ petitioner she  had defaulted in making payment of  only one instalment.         Be that as it may, we are inclined to accept Mr. Salve’s  suggestion and we accordingly direct   that upon deposit of a  sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand ) only, the Bank   shall forthwith release to the writ petitioner or her  agent  the  truck bearing registration  No.UP-78-AN-1951 which had been  seized  from the writ petitioner’s possession.  The writ petitioner  assisted by her agent, will sit with the Bank officials for the  purpose of reconciling the accounts and in the event it is found  that the writ petitioner had not been given credit for certain  payments made by her, such payments are to be taken into  account and the balance principal amount will then be paid by  the  writ petitioner-respondent to the Bank in six equal monthly  instalments, the last instalment being for any broken amount, if  any.  The writ petitioner-respondent undertakes not to  encumber or dispose of the truck till the final accounting is  completed and all dues are cleared.  In case of default in  payment of subsequent instalments, if any, the Bank will be  entitled to re-possess the vehicle in accordance with law.         The Bank shall forego the interest said to be payable by  the writ petitioner and the writ petitioner will also not be  entitled to make any claim on account of any damage and wear  and tear that may have been caused to the writ petitioner’s  vehicle while in the custody of the Bank and its officials.         The appeal is accordingly allowed and the order impugned  in the appeal is set aside.  If any First Information Report has  already been registered in terms of the impugned order, the  same shall also stand quashed along with the investigation  commenced thereupon.         Before we part with this matter, we wish to make it clear  that we do not appreciate the procedure adopted by the Bank in  removing the vehicle from the possession of the writ petitioner.   The practice of hiring recovery agents, who are musclemen, is  deprecated and needs to be discouraged.    The Bank should  resort to procedure recognized by law to take possession of  vehicles in cases where the borrower may have committed  default in payment of the instalments instead of taking resort to  strong arm tactics.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

       There shall be no order as to costs.