Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Hdfc Bank Ltd vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors on 4 December, 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ORDER HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs. State of Raj. & Anr. (1) S. B. Cr. MISC. PETITION NO. 921/2009. HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs. State of Raj. & Anr. (2) S. B. Cr. MISC. PETITION NO. 1377/2009. HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (3) S. B. Cr. MISC. PETITION NO. 1633/2009. HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs. State of Raj. & Anr. (4) S. B. Cr. MISC. PETITION NO. 1593/2009. under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR Date of Order : 4th December, 2013. HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA Mr Pankaj Gupta, for petitioner. Mr Laxman Meena, Public Prosecutor. Mr JP Gupta, for respondent (s) . BY THE COURT
All these petitions have been filed by HDFC Bank Ltd. on same facts and for quashing different FIRs, hence are decided by a common order.
2. The contention of the present petitioner in the petitions is that petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act and offering financial services to its customers. In the present cases, different amounts have been advanced to the respondents, but respondents has not paid the money and defaults are ranging from installments 6 to 21. The present petitioner has right to resume the possession of the vehicles in view of the term of the hire purchase agreement and after due intimation to the concerned police stations, vehicles have been repossessed as the respondents have neither produced vehicles for inspection nor paid the monthly installment. In the backdrop of these facts, impugned FIRs have been lodged against the present petitioner for the offence under Section 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and even under Section 379 and 392 IPC on the ground that they have dishonestly taken the possession of the vehicles whereas respondents are the defaulters and repossession has been rightly taken by the present petitioner, no offence has been committed by them hence the FIR be quashed.
Per contra, the contention of the respondents is that present petitioner has no right to repossess the vehicle by way of muscle power and specific allegations have been lodged in the FIRs hence the FIRs are maintainable.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the impugned FIRs.
4. The contention of the present petitioner is that under the hire purchase-agreement, they have repossessed the vehicles and no criminal proceedings could be initiated for criminal breach of trust cheating or even for theft. Respondents are defaulters in payment and after intimation to the respondents and to the concerned police stations, vehicles have been repossessed and it is to put pressure on the petitioner, these FIRs have been lodged and to fortify his contention, reliance has been placed on Charanjit Singh Chadha & ors. Vs. Sudhir Mehra, AIR 2001 SC 3721 wherein it has been held:
Where the hire purchase agreement between the parties specifically gave authority to the non-banking finance Company to repossess the vehicle and their agents were given the right to enter any property or building wherein the motor vehicle was likely to be kept and under the hire purchase agreement, said Company continued to be the owners of the vehicle, no offence of cheating, criminal breach of trust or theft of vehicle could be said to have been committed by the Company, who was the owner of vehicle, when on failure of hirer to pay the installments due, the Company took possession of the vehicle from the motor mechanic who was in possession of vehicle for certain repairs to be carried out. The hire-purchase agreement in law is an executory contract of sale and confers no right in rem on hirer until the conditions for transfer of the property to him have been fulfilled. Therefore, the repossession of goods as per the term of the agreement may not amount to any criminal offence.
Further reliance has been placed on K.A. Mathai @ Babu & Anr. Vs. Kora Bibbikutty & Anr., (1996) 7 SCC 212 wherein it was held:
... the financier took possession of the bus from the complainant with the aid of the appellants. It cannot thus be said that the appellants, in any way, had committed the offence of theft and that too, with the requite mens rea and requisite dishonest intention. The assertion of rights and obligations, accruing to the appellants under the aforesaid two agreements, wiped out any dishonest pretence in that regard from which it could be inferred that they had done so with a guilty intention.
5. In Trilok Singh & ors. Vs. Satya Deo Tripathi, AIR 1979 SC 850, it was held:
that the proceeding initiated was clearly an abuse of the process of the court. It was not a case where any process ought to have been directed to be issued against the accused (appellants). On the well-settled principles of law if was very suitable case where the criminal proceeding ought to have been quashed by the High Court in exercise of its inherent power. The dispute raised by the respondent was purely of a civil nature even assuming the facts stated by him to be substantially correct.
Further reliance has been placed on Aarif Khan Vs. State of Raj., 2008 (1) R.C.C.309 wherein it has been held that where possession has been taken under the hire-purchase agreement and dispute arose out of terms and conditions of the agreement are civil in nature and also relied on Bharath Mehta Vs. State by Inspector of Police, Chennai 2008 (2) Supreme 596 and Managing Director, Orix Auto Finance (India) Ltd. Vs. Shri Jagmander Singh & Anr., 2006 (1) Supreme 708. Lastly reliance has been placed on Anup Sarmah Vs. Bhola Nath Sharma & ors., (2013) 1 SCC 400 wherein it was held:
In view of the above, the law can be summarized that in an agreement of hire-purchase, the purchaser remains merely a trustee/ bailee on behalf of the financer/ financial institution and ownership remains with the later. Thus, in case the vehicle is seized by the financer, no criminal action can be taken against him as he is possessing the goods owned by him.
6. In the light of the above, contention of the present petitioner is that the vehicle has been handed over to respondents under the hire purchase agreement. Present petitioner is the owner and the trustee of the vehicle and ownership also lies in them and if the vehicle has been seized by the company, no offence has been committed by them. Per contra, the respondents has relied upon Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Prakash Kaur & ors., JT 2007 (4) SC 39 where the Apex Court has condemned the practice of repossessing the vehicle with muscle power but at the same time, criminal proceedings have been quashed.
7. In view of the above, that vehicles were under the hire-purchase agreement between the parties and documents have also been placed for perusal that prior to the lodging of the FIRs, vehicles have been repossessed by the company and it is just to put pressure FIRs have been lodged. In the present case, vehicles have been seized by the company under the hire purchase agreement, no criminal intention of theft or criminal breach of trust could be attributed to the present petitioner till the subsistence of the agreement, present petitioners are the owner and trustee of the vehicle and under the agreement, they have took the possession.
In view of the above, all these petitions succeed and are allowed. Impugned FIRs in these cases being FIR No. 132/2009 registered at Police Station Beawar City, Rural; FIR No. 132/2009 registered at Police Station Subhash Chowk, Jaipur FIR No. 333/2009 registered at Police Station Ashok Nagar, Jaipur; and FIR No. 303/2009 registered at Police Station Ashok Nagar, Jaipur against present petitioners are quashed.
(NISHA GUPTA),J.
Gandhi/ 3,5,6,8 All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Brij Mohan (Sr. P.A.)