Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 703 (MP)

Mohan Singh Rathore v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2005-07-12

S.L.JAIN

body2005
Judgment ( 1. ) INVOKING extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has filed this petition for quashing FIR on the basis of which Crime No. 402/02 has been registered against the petitioners at Police Station, Jahangirabad, District Bhopal and also for quashing the proceedings in regular Trial No. 1354/02, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhopal. ( 2. ) THE facts leading to the registration of the case succinctly narrated are thus:- (1) The applicants are employees of M/s. Doon Motors. The ICICI Limited appointed M/s. Doon Motors as ware House Keepers vide agreement dated 2-5-2002. The ICICI Limited financed a motor cycle Bajaj Caliber bearing Registration No. M. P. 04-NG 6684 to applicant Anjum Jamal. As per hire purchase agreement deed Anjum Jamal was bound to pay the monthly instalment in time. He committed as breach of the conditions of hire purchase agreement and the employees of ICICI Ltd. in exercise of their power under hire purchase scheme exercising its right of seizure seized the vehicle in question on 24-8-2002. The collection Manager of ICICI informed the police authorities on the same day. The ICICI Ltd. handed over the aforesaid vehicle to the applicants for safe custody. After about 2 months Anjum Jamal lodged a report on 30-10-2002 stating that the parked the aforesaid vehicle near Habibganj Hospital. When he came back, he did not find the vehicle. On the basis of the First Information Report, the police registered Crime No. 402/02. ( 3. ) I have heard Shri Sameer Seth, learned Counsel appearing for the applicants and Shri Asim Dixit, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State. Other documents including First Information Report perused. A perusal of these documents reveals that the issue between the parties relates to purchase of motor cycle and the same is purely of civil nature. Money was advanced to Anjum Jamal by the financier. Even assuming that the ICICI Ltd. seized the motor cycle, it was claimed to have been done in exercise of bona-fide right of seizing the vehicle on the borrowers failure to pay amount of instalments in time. ( 4. ) IN my opinion, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the First Information Report lodged against the applicants and the criminal case registered against the applicants deserve to be quashed. ( 4. ) IN my opinion, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the First Information Report lodged against the applicants and the criminal case registered against the applicants deserve to be quashed. The financier is found to have taken back the possession of the financed vehicle on the stand of the terms and conditions of the hire purchase agreement on account of failure of hire purchaser to pay the amount of instalments as per the agreement. ( 5. ) IN K. A. Mathai @ Babu and Anr. v. Kara Bibikutty and Anr. , ,, (1996 )7 SCC212 , it has been laid down that if the possession of the vehicle is taken by the financier as per terms of the hire purchase agreement, the act does not amount to a criminal offence. In view of this judgment the prosecution against the financier for offence punishable under Section 379 of the IPC is liable to be quashed in exercise of inherent powers. ( 6. ) IN the result, the petition is allowed. The First Information Report lodged by Anjum Jamal and the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 402/02, pending against the applicants in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhopal for an offence punishable under Section 379 of the IPC quashed.