Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 710 (MP)

Hariharan v. State of M. P.

2006-05-15

RAKESH SAKSENA

body2006
ORDER 1. This petition has been filed by the applicants, who arc respectively Branch Manager and Assistant Manager of Sundaram Finance Co. Ltd., Bhopal, for quashing the first information report registered by Police Station Habibganj, District Bhopal, at Crime No. 63/06 under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. In brief, the prosecution case is that on 23.2.2006 Smt. Ruchi Dixit (complainant) lodged a report with the police that on 22.2.2006 a about 8:30 p.m. when she had gone to the house of her sister Shobha, who lives in front of the Sarojini Naidu School situated at Shivaji Nagar, she had parked her Maruti-800 car having Registration No. MP-04-HA/6190 in front of the school. A red coloured purse containing Rs.85,000/- cash, which she had to pay to her workers, one gold necklace, two bank ATM cards, keys of house and papers relating to income-tax and Corporation were also kept in the car. When she came out of the house, her car was not there. Some unknown thief had stolen the car. On the basis of the above report police registered an offence under section 379 of the IPC against ubnknown person. 3. During investigation it came to light that the said car was seized by Sundaram Finance Co. Ltd. through the agency of Nazar Khan, who was authorised by the Company for repossession of the vehicle due to default in payment of installments of the loan borrowed by the complainant for purchase of the above car. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a loan agreement was entered into between Smt. Ruchi Dixit and Sundaram Finance Co. Ltd. for purchasing a new Maruti-800 car for an amount of Rs. 2.03,670/-to be payable in 47 monthly installments. According to him, the last installment was to be paid on 10.9.2006. Husband of the complainant Mr.Vijay Shankar Dixit stood guarantor under the loan agreement. By the finance made by the Company the said Maruti-800 car was purchased. After making some payment the complainant started making default in payment of installments despite several demands and reminders by the Company. Learned counsel submtited that since the complainant had entered into the agreement of hire purchase with the Company, it was agreed upon that the creditor Company, will have a right to terminate the agreement and will be entitled to retake and recover the possession of the vehicle in case of default. Learned counsel submtited that since the complainant had entered into the agreement of hire purchase with the Company, it was agreed upon that the creditor Company, will have a right to terminate the agreement and will be entitled to retake and recover the possession of the vehicle in case of default. Since the complainant became habitual defaulter in payment of the loan and repeatedly violated the terms and conditions of the agreement, the Finance Company exercising its right to seize and repossess the vehicle cannot be said to be a criminal act and, in fact, the dispute is of civil nature, therefore, the first information report recorded under section 379 of IPC deserves to be quashed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners placing reliance on the case of Sardar Trilok Singh and others v. Satya Deo Tripathi reported in (1979) 4 SCC 396 submitted that even assuming that the vehicle was seized by the petitioners either by themselves or through the agency of some others from the possession of the complainant, they could claim to have been done so in the exercise of their bona fide right under the contract of seizing the vehicle on complainant's failure to pay the monthly installments in time, as such it was a bona fide civil dispute which led to the seizure of the car. He submitted that the allegation that the cash of Rs. 85,000/-, gold necklace and other properties were also kept in the car at the time of the occurrence, is highly exaggerated and false and had been incorporated in the first information report with mala fide motive to make the incident more serious. 6. He submitted that the allegation that the cash of Rs. 85,000/-, gold necklace and other properties were also kept in the car at the time of the occurrence, is highly exaggerated and false and had been incorporated in the first information report with mala fide motive to make the incident more serious. 6. Learned counsel also placed reliance on M/s. Shri International Finance Ltd. v. M.G. Narayana and others [ 1998 (4) Crimes 6 ], C. Venkatesulu & Venkatesu v. State of A.P. [1998 (4) Crimes 19], Ashok Kumar v. Balaraman [1998 (2) Crimes 423] and Smt. Premlata v. State of Rajasthan [1998 (2) Crimes 425] wherein it has been held that when the vehicle was purchased on loan provided by the petitioner under a hire purchase agreement containing condition authorizing the Finance Company to repossess the vehicle in the event of default in payment of any installment dues, if the vehicle was seized and repossessed by the Finance Company on default of payment of installments, criminal proceedings would be abuse of process of the Court and deserve to be quashed. 7. Learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners and submitted that from the allegations made in the first information report and the statements of witnesses recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure prima facie a case of theft is made out and as such the registration of the first information report under section 379 of the IPC is fully justified. 8. After hearing the submissions advanced by the learned counsel of both the parties and perusing the record contained in the case diary I am of the opinion that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 9. So far as the allegations made by the complainant in respect of the theft of the Maruti Car are concerned, it appears that the car was seized by the petitioners by utilizing the agency authorized for that purpose in accordance with the terms of the agreement, but so far as the allegation about the theft of Rs.85,000/-, gold necklace and other property which is said to have been kept in the car is concerned, prima facie an offence under section 379 of IPC appears to have been made out. It is a matter of investigation as to whether such property was kept in the car or not at the time when the said car was stealthily taken away. At the initial stage of investigation it cannot be held that the statement of complainant made in the first information report and the statements recorded under section 161 of the Code were false or exaggerated. The possibility that the persons hired for seizing and taking away the vehicle might have removed the articles kept in the car cannot be ruled out. It is a matter of common knowledge that for such purposes the people who are hired, are not always of suave disposition. 10. In view of the allegations made in the first information report and the evidence on record I do not find it feasible to quash the first information report and the investigation at the initial stage. In the case of Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and others v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque and another [ (2005) 1 SCC 122 ] the apex Court has observed that "When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in Court which decides the fate of the accused person. The allegations of mal fides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by themselves be the basis for quashing the proceedings." 11. In view of the above on due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case I find no substance in this petition. It is accordingly, dismissed.