- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18472 WP No. 15446 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 15446 OF 2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: L & T FINANCE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS FAMILY CREDIT LIMITED) HAVING ITS OFFICE AT: NO.161, 3RD FLOOR, PRIDE HULKUL BUILDING, LAAL BAGH ROAD, BANGALORE. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, PRASHANTH KUMAR, S/O. THIMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. ANUPARNA BORDOLOI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH KALASIPALYA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560001. 2. SMT. SUNDARI W/O. SUNDAR, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, NO.53/1, JAMIYA MASJID ROAD, IN FRONT OF ROYAL CONVENT SCHOOL, VIRAT NAGAR, 8TH MAIN, BOMMNEHALLI, BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA-560068. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18472 WP No. 15446 of 2019 (BY SRI. RAJATH SUBRAMANYAM, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.2 AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINTS DATED 01.03.2019 IN CRIME NOs.0041/2019 GIVEN BY 2ND RESPONDENT FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 34 SECTION 420 OF THE IPC, 1860 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged an FIR registered against it and its two officials for an offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (henceforth referred to as 'IPC' for short). 2. The respondent No.2 informed the respondent No.1 on 01.03.2019 that she purchased a two wheeler from the financial assistance provided by the petitioner. She claimed that she had paid EMIs for twelve months but had defaulted in payment of EMIs for four months. She further claimed that on 28.02.2019, the officials of the petitioner visited her husband's - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18472 WP No. 15446 of 2019 office and informed him that the vehicle would be seized for non-payment of EMIs. The officials of the petitioner were thereafter contacted and they agreed not to seize the vehicle subject to payment of outstanding EMIs. She claimed that she and her son visited the petitioner's office, where they were instructed to pay the EMI along with fine of Rs.3,000/- towards seizing charges. When she informed the petitioner that the vehicle was not seized and therefore she was not liable to pay Rs.3,000/-, she was told that the vehicle was already seized. She claimed that when she went down to check the vehicle it was not there in the parking area. She therefore alleged that the petitioner committed an offence of cheating. Based on this, respondent No.1 registered an FIR for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of IPC. 3. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.2 has not denied the fact that the vehicle was purchased out of the financial assistance availed from the petitioner. He contends that vehicle was hypothecated in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18472 WP No. 15446 of 2019 favour of the petitioner and hence, the petitioner was entitled to seize the vehicle for non-payment of EMIs without seeking intervention of the Court. He further submits that the vehicle is now released to the son of respondent No.2 and therefore, continuation of the FIR against the petitioner is unwarranted. 5. The learned HCGP submitted that since the petitioner has used force to seize the vehicle, respondent No.1 has filed an FIR for an offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of IPC. He submits that the issue requires an investigation and therefore this Court may not exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. 6. The respondent No. 2, though served with a notice, has not appeared. 7. A perusal of the information furnished by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1 shows that the vehicle in question was purchased out of the financial assistance provided by the petitioner and that she was bound to pay the monthly installments as agreed. It is not in dispute that there was default in payment of EMIs for four months. As rightly - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18472 WP No. 15446 of 2019 contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner being the financier of the vehicle had a right to repossess the same without the intervention of the Court. Hence, it could not be accused of an offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. Furthermore, it is now stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the vehicle in question is already released to the registered owner on 04.03.2019, after the entire EMI's was paid. 8. In that view of the matter, continuation of the FIR against the petitioner is unwarranted. Therefore, the petition is allowed. The impugned FIR registered by respondent No.1 in Cr.No.41/2019 against the petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of IPC is quashed. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10