Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 855 (AP)

G. S. v. Gopal VS State

2006-07-19

B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

body2006
O R D E R This Criminal Petition has been filed by A1 and A2 in Crime No.36 of 2006 of Kodad Town Police Station, Nalgonda District, registered for the offences under Sections 420, 477 (A), 506 IPC to quash the proceeding therein. 2. The petitioners are employees in M/s. Sundaram Finance Limited. The 2nd respondent/defacto complainant purchased the vehicle bearing No.24V 0788 under hire-purchase agreement from M/s. Sundaram Finance limited. Consequent on failure of installments, the vehicle came to be seized by the financier. The 2nd respondent/ defacto complainant approached the financier for some settlement. On failure of such settlement, he resorted to file report before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kodad. The said complaint came to be forwarded to the Station House Officer, Kodad Police Station. Thereupon, the Station House Officer registered a case in Crime No.36 of 2006 for the offences under Sections 420, 477 (A) and 506 IPC. Hence, this criminal petition by A 1 and A2 under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 3. 2nd respondent/ defacto complainant though entered appearance through a Counsel, neither the 2nd respondent nor his Counsel appeared when the case is taken up for hearing. 4. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners/A1 and A2 submits that the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant purchased the vehicle on hire-purchase agreement and consequent on his failure to pay the installments, the vehicle in question came to be seized and in which case, the action of the financier or his employees cannot be faulted. He further submits that the dispute between the 2nd respondent and the financier is purely civil in nature, and therefore, the continuance of criminal proceeding against the petitioners, who are the employees of the financier, amounts to abuse of process of Court. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in TRILOK SINGH v. SATYA DEO TRIPATHI(1) and CHARANJIT SINGH CHADHA v. SUDHIR MEHRA(2). 6. In the first cited decision, it has been held that the dispute between the parties relating to the purchase of a truck under hire-purchase agreement was purely of civil nature and criminal proceeding initiated was an abuse of process of the Court and deserved to be quashed. 7. 6. In the first cited decision, it has been held that the dispute between the parties relating to the purchase of a truck under hire-purchase agreement was purely of civil nature and criminal proceeding initiated was an abuse of process of the Court and deserved to be quashed. 7. In the second cited decision, disputes in respect of hire-purchase agreement have to be resolved on the basis of the terms incorporated in the agreement. 8. Undisputedly, the 2nd respondent purchased the vehicle in question on hire-purchase agreement from M/s. Sundaram Finance Limited. The petitioners herein are employees of M/s. Sundaram Finance Limited. The ownership of the vehicle stood vested with the Financier till the 2nd defendant-defacto complainant paid all the installments. Under hire purchase agreement, the hirer is simply for the use of goods and for the option to purchase them. The finance charge, representing the differences between the cash price and the hire purchase price, is not interest but represents the sum which the hirer has to pay for the privilege of being allowed to discharge the purchase price of goods by installments. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the action of the financier in seizing the vehicle as per the hire-purchase agreement does not constitute any offence under Section 420 IPC, 477 (A) or 506 IPC. There is no element of misappropriation or cheating when the financier seized the vehicle as per the hire-purchase agreement. Therefore, the continuance of proceeding against the petitioners, who are the employees of Financier of the vehicle in question, in Crime No. 36 of 2006 of Kodad Town Police Station, amounts to abuse of process of Court. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Proceeding against the petitioners/A1 and A2 in Crime No.36 of 2006 of Kodad Town Police Station, Nalgonda District is hereby quashed. --X--