Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1869 (DEL)

KRISHAN KUMAR v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)

2006-10-12

S.N.AGGARWAL

body2006
S. N. AGGARWAL, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking quashing of fir No. 387/2005 registered against them under Section 394/34 IPC with Police station Defence Colony, New Delhi. ( 2 ) THE factual matrix of the case is as follows: the petitioners, who are four in number, at the time of the incident were employees of Collection Agency of HDFC Bank. The name of the collection Agency is ?c. K. Agency?. Shri Ramesh Chaudhary is the proprietor of the said agency. ( 3 ) THE complainant Mr. Ashish Sood who is respondent No. 2 in this petition had got the vehicle Maruti 800 CC financed from HDFC Bank on 5/10/2004 the amount of finance was Rs. 1,12,500. 00 which as per terms of the loan agreement was agreed to be paid in 36 equated monthly installments of Rs. 3,890. 00 per month each. On 15/7/2005, the respondent No. 2 was in default of five EMIs and therefore, in terms of the loan agreement the HDFC Bank got the vehicle in question re-possessed through its collection agency and this led respondent No. 2 to lodge a FIR against the petitioners that they had attempted to take away his vehicle in question by giving beatings to him and his brother. On his said complaint, the aforementioned FIR sought to be quashed was registered against the petitioners with Police Station Defence Colony. Subsequent to the registration of the FIR, the complainant (respondent No. 2) and HDFC Bank entered into a Memorandum of Understanding which is at pages 10-12 of the paper book. By way of this Memorandum of Understanding, the HDFC Bank settled the loan account with the complainant (respondent No. 2) for an amount of Rs. 50,000. 00 which is now stated to has been paid by the complainant to the Bank. The bank has also given 'no Objection Certificate' certifying that there is no amount outstanding in the loan account against the vehicle got financed by the complainant from HDFC Bank. In view of said compromise arrived at between the parties, the complainant gave an affidavit which is at pages 8-9 of the paper book. The relevant portion of his affidavit is reproduced hereinbelow:-"2. In view of said compromise arrived at between the parties, the complainant gave an affidavit which is at pages 8-9 of the paper book. The relevant portion of his affidavit is reproduced hereinbelow:-"2. That the case FIR No. 387/2005 under Section 394/34 IPC at Police station Defence was registered on my complaint which was lodged by me under confusion as I was ignorant of the fact that my vehicle Make Maruti Car was re-possessed by the employees of the authorised Agency of the Financer in view of the defaults of payments committed by me. 3 That I have resolved all the disputes with the financers namely HDFC bank Ltd. and its authorised Agency/reprsentatives who are petitioners in the present petition amicably and voluntarily. " ( 4 ) RELYING on the aforementioned facts, the learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the offence under Section 394 IPC is not made out, even if the prosecution case as contained in the complaint of respondent No. 2 is taken on its face value. The contention of the learned counsel is that the vehicle in question was re-possessed strictly in terms of the loan agreement as respondent No. 2 being the complainant was in default of five EMIs on the date of re-possession of the vehicle. According to the learned counsel, there was no mens-rea on the part of the bank or its Collection Agency acting through the petitioners in robbing the complainant of his vehicle got financed from the bank. It is submitted that since the loan transaction has already been settled amicably and as 'no Dues Certificate' has also been given by the bank to respondent No. 2, the respondent No. 2 does not want to continue with his criminal case got registered against the petitioners as is so evident from his affidavit, relevant portion whereof is reproduced hereinabove. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 says that he has no objection in case the fir in question is quashed against the petitioners. I am of the view that since parties have amicably resolved their disputes, no useful purpose is going to be served by continuing with the criminal case got registered against the petitioners. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 says that he has no objection in case the fir in question is quashed against the petitioners. I am of the view that since parties have amicably resolved their disputes, no useful purpose is going to be served by continuing with the criminal case got registered against the petitioners. ( 5 ) IN view of the above and having regard to the circumstances of the case, FIR No. 387/2005 under Section 394/34 IPC registered against the petitioners with Police Station Defence Colony, New Delhi is quashed and all consequent proceedings initiated pursuant thereto are also dropped.