Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1237 (MP)

Vijay Shrivastava v. State of M. P.

2007-11-30

R.C.MISHRA

body2007
ORDER 1. This petition, under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code'), has arisen from the order dated 26.2.2007 passed by X Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Criminal Revision No. 318/06, whereby the order dated 2.9.2006, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jabalpur in Cr. Case No. 18876/06 granting interim custody of the seized truck to the respondent No.2, was affirmed. 2. The respondent No.2 is a finance company. The petitioner entered into a hire-purchase with the Company in respect of a truck that was registered as vehicle No. MP 20 G 2840. The truck was seized by the police in connection with a criminal case registered at police station Gorakhpur in respect of the offences punishable under sections 279 and 337 of the IPC against one Sukhchain. The respondent No.2 applied for interim custody of the truck. His prayer was opposed by the Finance Company on the ground that the petitioner had violated conditions of the hire-purchase basis by committing default in payment of the instatements against the price of the vehicle. 3. Accepting the contention, learned CJM rejected the prayer made by the petitioner for interim custody of the vehicle. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred the revision but, as pointed out already, the order of CJM was maintained by the revisional Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that the matter requires interference for the following reasons: (i) Learned Magistrate as well as the learned ASJ completely misdirected themselves in holding that the Finance Company viz. respondent No.2 was entitled to interim custody of the truck even after the expiry of the term of hire-purchase basis. (ii) The documents filed by the respondent No.2 Company clearly indicated that nothing was due against the price of the truck and, even otherwise, it ought to have afforded a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner before re-possessing the vehicle. (iii) The rate of interest charged by the Finance Company was apparently exorbitant. 5. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has raised a preliminary objection as to maintainability of the petition on the ground that the second attempt to have the order granting interim custody of the vehicle revised is barred, under section 397 (3) of the Code. 5. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has raised a preliminary objection as to maintainability of the petition on the ground that the second attempt to have the order granting interim custody of the vehicle revised is barred, under section 397 (3) of the Code. He has further contended that, even if, the petition is treated as maintainable, the order in question would not require any interference in the light of a well settled position of law on the point. 6. In response, learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out the apex Court in the case of ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Prakash Kaur [ (2007) 2 SCC 711 ] has deprecated the procedure resorted to by the lending bank/financial institution for recovering possession of the vehicles taken on hire-purchase basis forcibly on the ground that the borrower has defaulted in paying certain instalments. 7. However, the law as to scope of interference under the inherent powers is well settled. Accordingly, the jurisdiction can be exercised only in cases where the High Court finds that there has been failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure. 8. Adverting to the case on hand, it may be seen that the petitioner allowed a fresh period of limitation to the Financial Company, for enforcing the agreement, by making payment of the instalments before expiry of the stipulated period. In this view of the matter, the contention that the financer could not invoke the clause to re-possess the vehicle is apparently misconceived. Moreover, in view of a concurrent finding that the vehicle was seized by the police and not by the Finance Company, the pronouncement in ICICI Bank's case (supra) is of no avail to the petitioner. 9. This apart, considering the ambit and scope of section 482 of the Code, it would not be desirable to enter into the questions relating to propriety of the rate of interest and correctness of the statement of accounts. 10. For these reasons, I am of the view that order giving interim custody to the respondent No. 2/Finance Company, as affirmed by the revisional Court, does not deserve any interference, for the simple reason that the hire-purchase basis conferred no right in rem on the petitioner until the conditions were fulfilled Charanjeet Chadha v. Sudhir Mehra [ (2001) 7 SCC 417 ] referred to. 11. Consequently, the petition stands dismissed.