JUDGMENT Kuldip Chand Sood, J.—This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the orders of the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, dated 4th August 2003, whereby he directed the release of the vehicle to respondent Suresh Kumar, the registered owner, in preference to the financier of the vehicle, by setting aside the order of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghumarwin, who by his orders dated 18th February, 2004 and released the vehicle to the financier under hire purchased agreement. 2. It appears, a Mahindra Balero Jeep No. HP-28-2305 was seized by the police on 7th January, 2003 in a case registered with Police Station, Ghumarwin, for offences under Sections 392, 307, 147, 149 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. An application was moved by respondent, Suresh Kumar, for the release of the vehicle being its registered owner before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghumarwin. The petitioner, who was the financier of the vehicle purchased by Suresh Kumar under hire-purchase agreement, also moved an application claiming custody of the vehicle on the grounds that Suresh Kumar defaulted in the payment of the installments of the hire charges and interest and an amount of Rs. 6,11/839 was due from him, therefore, under the hire-purchase agreement the financier was entitled to the custody of the vehicle. 3. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate directed the release of the vehicle to the finance company on furnishing security amount of Rs. seven lacs. Respondent Suresh Kumar dis-safisfied approached the learned Sessions Judge who by his impugned orders directed the release of the vehicle to respondent-Suresh Kuamr on the ground that he being the registered owner of the vehicle was entitled to the custody of the vehicle in preference to the finance company. 4. It may be noticed that hirer, Suresh Kumar did not put an appearance inspite of the notice served upon him. It is admitted position that the petitioner, Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Services Limited had granted financial assistance to respondent Suresh Kumar to purchase this vehicle under hire-purchase agreement. It is also not in dispute that respondent Suresh Kumar defaulted in the payment of installments. A copy of the hire-purchase agreement was produced before the learned trial Magistrate. Clause 11 of the agreement authorises the finance company to take possession of the vehicle on failure of the hirer to pay any dues to the owner i.e. finance company. It is also not in dispute that respondent Suresh Kumar defaulted in the payment of installments. A copy of the hire-purchase agreement was produced before the learned trial Magistrate. Clause 11 of the agreement authorises the finance company to take possession of the vehicle on failure of the hirer to pay any dues to the owner i.e. finance company. The agent or servant of the finance company, under the agreement are entitled to enter upon any premises where the product may be or is believed to be and take possession of the same without being liable to any court or other proceedings by the hirer. Statement of accounts produced by the finance company show that in fact amount of Rs. 6,11,839 was due to be paid by respondent Suresh Kumar to the finance company. The learned trial Magistrate relying upon Manipal Finance Corporation Ltd, v. T. Bangarappa and another, 1994 Supp. (1) Supreme Court Cases 507 and K.A. Mathai alias Babu and another v. Kora Bibbikutty and another, (1996) 7 SCC 212, directed the release of vehicle to the custody of finance company. 5. Learned Sessions Judge in revision took a view that the custody of the vehicle should be given to the registered owner in view of Sections 151, 152 and 457 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 6. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General I am of the view that the learned Sessions Judge released the vehicle to the registered owner without application of mind and despite the legal position having been brought to his notice. In Manipal Finance Corporation Ltd. appellant company had given financial facility on hire-purchase basis to the respondent for the purchase of the vehicle. The hirer failed to pay installments and committed successive defaults, the appellant-company took possession of the vehicle under the terms of hire-purchase agreement. The hirer lodged complaint of theft against two employees of the appellant company, who had seized the vehicle. In those proceeding the police took charge of the vehicle and produced the same before the concerned Magistrate. The Magistrate directed the custody of the vehicle to be given to the hirer on his executing bonds. The hirer lodged complaint of theft against two employees of the appellant company, who had seized the vehicle. In those proceeding the police took charge of the vehicle and produced the same before the concerned Magistrate. The Magistrate directed the custody of the vehicle to be given to the hirer on his executing bonds. The apex Court in these facts observed that as hire purchase agreement provided taking of the vehicle by the finance company in the default of installments, the Magistrate was not right in giving the custody of the vehicle to the hirer. In K.A. Mathai the apex Court observed:— "Though we do not have the advantage of reading the hire-purchase agreement, but as normally drawn it would have contained the clause that in the event of the failure to make payment of installments the financier had the right to resume possession of the vehicle. Since the financiers agreement with A-2 contained that clause of resumption of possession, that has to be read, if not specifically provided in the agreement, as part of the sale agreement A-2 and the complainant. It is, in these circumstances, 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 requisite metis rea and requisite dishonest intention". 7. In Charanjit Singh Chadha and others v. Sudhir Mehra, (2001) 7 SCC 417, the apex Court held that hire-purchase agreements are executory contracts under which the goods are let on hire and the hirer has an option to purchase in accordance with the terms of the agreement. Their Lordships in para 17 held:— "17. The hire-purchase agreement in law is an executory contract of sale and confers no right in rent on their 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. The agreement (Annexure P-1) specifically gave authority to the appellants to repossess the vehicle and their agents have been given the right to enter any property or building wherein the motor vehicle was likely to be kept. Therefore, the repossession of goods as per the term of the agreement may not amount to any criminal offence. The agreement (Annexure P-1) specifically gave authority to the appellants to repossess the vehicle and their agents have been given the right to enter any property or building wherein the motor vehicle was likely to be kept. Under the hire-purchase agreement, the appellants continue to be the owners of the vehicle and even if the entire allegations against them are taken as true, no offence was made out against them. The learned Single Judge seriously flawed in his decision and failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by not quashing the proceedings initiated against the appellants. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment. The complaint and any other proceedings initiated pursuant to such complaint are quashed." (Emphasis given) 8. It thus is settled position in law that under the hire-purchase agreement the petitioner finance company continue to be owner of the vehicle and, therefore, entitled to the custody of the vehicle in preference to registered owner even if such a vehicle is seized by the police in some criminal case. 9. In result, the petition is allowed. The impugned orders of the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur dated 4th August, 2003 are set aside and that of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghumarwin, dated 18th February, 2003 restored. -