Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1398 (CAL)

In Re: Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd. v. .

2011-11-03

KANCHAN CHAKRABORTY

body2011
Judgment : This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is pertaining to a proceeding in Baruipur Police Station Case No.223 of 2006 dated 19.9.2006 pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, 24-Paraganas, South at Alipore. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the proceedings initiated against him under Sections 420/406/506 of the I.P.C. mainly on the ground that no case is made out either in the F.I.R. or in course of enquiry against him and, as such, continuance of such a proceeding would be amounting to abuse of process of the Court. The opposite party Chandidas Chakraborty purchased a motor vehicle financed by the petitioner. The opposite party has failed to repay the loan amount by paying monthly instalments regularly. As per terms and conditions of the agreement between the opposite party no.2 and the Finance Company, the petitioner took over possession of the vehicle on 29.8.2005. Prior to that, notice was served on him. The opposite party requested the petitioner to return the vehicle but it was turned down. The opposite party moved a writ petition before this Court but failed to obtain any order in his favour. Instead of instituting any civil action, he straightway lodged one complaint against the petitioner under Sections 420/406/506 of the I.P.C. The accused/petitioner Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd. has come up with this application praying for quashing of the proceeding on the ground already stated. Heard Mr. Banerjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Siddique, learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party/State. Perused the case diary produced by Mr. Siddique. On perusal of the F.I.R., it appears that the opposite party No.2 purchased the vehicle in question which was financed by the petitioner and another. It is stated clearly in the F.I.R. that he failed to pay the instalment amount and was served with a notice by the petitioner. According to the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into by the parties, the petitioner was having right under the agreement to seize vehicle and sell it. Although a request was made on behalf of the opposite party no.2, that request was turned down by the petitioner. It appears from the F.I.R. that no force was applied in taking over possession of the vehicle by the petitioner. Although a request was made on behalf of the opposite party no.2, that request was turned down by the petitioner. It appears from the F.I.R. that no force was applied in taking over possession of the vehicle by the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner was in default in payment of monthly instalments and in view of the terms and conditions of the agreement, the petitioner was entitled to seize the vehicle, “in the event of default” mentioned clearly in the agreement. The petitioner has also right to sell the vehicle to any third party without serving any notice to the borrower, i.e., the opposite party no.2. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner acted illegally but under the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into by the parties. Mr. Siddique, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party/State draws attention of the Court to a statement of one Prolay Jha recorded by the I.O. under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Prolay Jha was the Manager of Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd, the petitioner herein. I have gone through the statement carefully and failed to find out anything else against the petitioner in support of the prosecution case under Sections 420/406/506 of the I.P.C. To be stated precisely, the F.I.R. does not disclose, prima facie, commission of any offence under Sections 420/406/506 of the I.P.C. by the petitioner. The opposite party no.2, at best, could have taken recourse of civil court. Since the F.I.R. and the other documents related to investigation into the case altogether does not disclose that any offence is made out against the petitioner, this Court is of the view that continuance of this proceeding would be amounting to abuse of the process of the Court. This appears to be a fit and proper case where this Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in order to avoid abuse of the process of the Court. Accordingly, I allow the prayer. Let the proceeding against the petitioner be quashed. C.D. be returned to Mr. Siddique. In view of the order passed in the revisional application, C.R.A.N. application, if any, stands disposed of. The revisional application, thus, stands disposed of. There will be, however, no order as to costs.