16.09.2026 Item no.23 Ct. No.237 Suman C.R.R. 1989 of 2026 Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Devangan Bhattacharjee Mr. Ranjit Singh Mr. Amar Singh Ms. Tutul Das Singh Ms. Alivia Bhattacharjee Ms. Sweta Bali ..for the petitioner Mr. Kallol Mondal, Ld. P.P. Mr. Subir Ganguly Mr. Sandeep Prasad Shaw ..for the State Let the affidavit of service filed by the petitioner be kept with the records. The petitioner challenges the order dated March 6, 2026, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Barasat in connection with Duttapukur Police Station Case No. 676 of 2025 (G.R. No. 3268 of 2025) under Sections 316(2)/318(4)/336(2)/ 336(3)/338/340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner is a financing company. It appears that opposite party no. 2 entered into a loan-cum-hypothecation agreement with the petitioner and availed of a loan of Rs. 8,00,000/- against a vehicle. Opposite party no. 2 failed to pay the monthly instalments and consequently became a defaulter. Accordingly, the petitioner lodged a complaint against opposite party no. 2, which was registered as Duttapukur Police Station Case No. 676 of 2025 dated September 12, 2025, under Sections 318(4)/316(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Subsequently, Sections 336(2)/336(3)/338/340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, were added. It appears that the vehicle in question was seized by the Investigating Agency in the course of investigation. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Sections 451/457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Barasat. By an order dated December 29, 2025, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate allowed the vehicle to be released in favour of the petitioner upon furnishing a ‘zimma’ bond of Rs. 8,00,000/-, with a direction not to change the nature and character of the seized vehicle without the permission of the Court and to produce the same as and when required. The learned Magistrate further directed that opposite party no. 2 would be entitled to get back the vehicle as soon as he obtained a no-objection certificate from the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application before the learned Magistrate under Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking permission to sell the vehicle. By the impugned order dated March 6, 2026, the learned Magistrate rejected the said prayer. The learned Magistrate was of the view that the dispute between the parties is commercial in 2 nature. Opposite party no. 2 was merely a defaulter and, therefore, no order could be passed in a criminal proceeding for repayment of the outstanding loan amount by way of sale or auction of the vehicle. The learned Magistrate was further of the opinion that the allegations raised by the petitioner do not disclose the commission of any criminal offence and that the petitioner ought to approach the Civil Court for appropriate relief. This Court is of the view that the petitioner company appears to have sought to give a criminal colour to what is essentially a commercial transaction, resulting in the seizure of the vehicle by the Investigating Agency and the subsequent grant of custody thereof in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner sought to liquidate its outstanding dues by selling the vehicle in question. The petitioner cannot be permitted to invoke the mechanism prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for expediting the recovery of its outstanding dues by way of sale of the vehicle when the dispute between the parties is essentially civil in nature. The learned Magistrate, by order dated December 29, 2025, had granted interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner with a specific observation that opposite party no. 2 would be entitled to get back the vehicle upon obtaining a no-objection certificate from the petitioner. The said order was not challenged by the petitioner. Permitting the petitioner to sell the vehicle at this stage would, therefore, defeat the right of opposite party no. 2 to recover 3 possession of the vehicle in terms of the order dated December 29, 2025. In view of the aforesaid, I am not inclined to interfere with the order dated March 6, 2026, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Barasat. Accordingly, C.R.R. 1989 of 2026 is dismissed. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned advocates for the parties on usual undertakings. (Kausik Chanda, J.) 4