Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 549 (JHR)

Pravin Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2024-06-10

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2024
JUDGMENT : (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent State and the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2. 2. The prayer in the petition is made for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 20th May, 2015 arising out of Complaint Case No.1609 of 2013 consequent to TR. No. 849 of 2015 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. 3. The complaint case was filed alleging therein that the complainant/O.P. No.2 purchased TATA Ace FX vehicle from Budhia Agencies, Pvt. Ltd., Tata Motors Ltd., Ranchi on 26.05.2010 in total consideration amount of Rs.2,94,241/-. It was alleged that said vehicle was purchased on finance provided by TATA Motors Finance Ltd. under contract No.5000553589 and EMI was fixed to Rs.7,300/- The registration of vehicle was processed by the Financer because the vehicle was purchased in Hire Purchase agreement and the vehicle was registered on 10.08.2010 and it was intimated by financer to complainant/O.P. No.2 that registration No. of vehicle is JH-01-AF-8701. It was also alleged that the said vehicle was handed over to the Complainant/O.P. No.2 by the financer on the next day of the registration The Complainant/O.P. No.2 got the vehicle insured from ICICI Lombard and also got the road permit and started plying the vehicle in public way. It was further alleged that the Complainant/O.P. No.2 started paying Rs.7300/- per month to TATA Motors Finance Ltd. from August 2010 and paid up to date payment till May, 2013. The Complainant/O.P. No.2 never misused the privilege provided under the contract of Agreement and paid the fixed amount regularly. It was also alleged in the complaint petition that on 11.06.2013 at about 9:00 AM the driver of complainant Sri Ram Mahto had parked the vehicle in Bharat Garage BIT Ranchi which was seized by financier musclemen and took the said vehicle in their own possession. It was further alleged that the Complainant/O.P. No.2 vehicle was seized by the financier’s hired persons without any reason and they also picked Rs.5000/- from the pocket of the driver. It was alleged that if the financier had any grievance he should have given prior notice of their intention to do so. It was further alleged that the Complainant/O.P. No.2 vehicle was seized by the financier’s hired persons without any reason and they also picked Rs.5000/- from the pocket of the driver. It was alleged that if the financier had any grievance he should have given prior notice of their intention to do so. The financier has illegally seized the vehicle of the Complainant/O.P. No.2 and when the Complainant/O.P. No.2 met the accused persons they did not release the vehicle and threatened to face dire consequences. For that the Complainant/O.P. No.2 is losing Rs.1500/- per day due to seizure of the vehicle. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an ex-employee of TATA Motors Finance Ltd. and was posted as “Branch Manager Collection” and he has not committed any offence whatsoever under the law and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. He submits that the complainant in order to change the nature of the dispute which is out rightly civil in nature arising out of “Loan-cum-Hypothecation-cum-guarantee Agreement” dated 26.05.2010 for default in repayment of EMIs by the petitioner has concocted a false story implicating the petitioner into the instant criminal case just to pressurize the TATA Motors Finance Co. Ltd. He submits that the complainant has taken the loan from the TATA Motors Finance Co. Ltd. for purchase of the vehicle thereafter a loan agreement was entered into between the parties on 26.05.2010 for purchase of vehicle by the complainant and a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was disbursed by TATA Motors Finance Ltd. being the Financer to the complainant which was required to be repaid in 45 EMIs. and first installment was fixed for Rs.7320/- and the rest of 44 installments @ Rs.7300/-. He submits that after payment of certain installments, the opposite party No.2 has not paid the EMIs. and in view of the Clause 18 of the loan agreement the said vehicle, after following the due process of law, the vehicle was re-possessed by the TATA Motors Finance Ltd. He submits that if any case is made out that is civil in nature, falsely the present case has been lodged against the petitioner who was the Branch Manager Collection at that time in the said company. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the learned Court has been pleased to take cognizance on the complaint petition. 6. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the learned Court has been pleased to take cognizance on the complaint petition. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.2 opposed the prayer on the ground that even an amount of Rs.5,000/- was also snatched along with the vehicle by the staff of the company from the driver of the said vehicle. He submits that the case is made out in view of that the learned Court has rightly taken the cognizance. He submits that this Court may not interfere at this stage. 7. The Court has gone through the materials on record and finds that admittedly there is hire purchase agreement between the TATA Motors Finance Co. Ltd. and the Opposite Party No.2 and a loan was sanctioned for purchase of the vehicle and certain amount was paid by the opposite party No.2 and subsequently the EMIs were not paid and in view of the Clause 18 of the said agreement the said company has repossessed the vehicle in question. It is well settled that in an agreement of hire purchase, the purchaser remains merely a trustee/bailee on behalf of financier/financial institution and ownership remains with the later. Thus, in case vehicle is seized by financier, no criminal action can be taken against him as he is repossessing the goods owned by him. A reference may be made to the case of Anup Sarmah Versus Bhola Nath Sharma and Others reported in (2013) 1 SCC page 400. This aspect was further considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sardar Trilok Singh Versus Satya Deo Tripathi reported in (1979) 4 SCC page 396 as well as in K.A. Mathai Versus Kora Bibbikutty reported in (1996) 7 SCC page 212. 8. In view of the above to allow the proceeding to continue will amount to abuse of process of law. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding dated 20.05.2015 arising out of Complaint Case No.1609 of 2013 consequent to T.R. No.849 of 2015 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi are quashed. 9. This petition is allowed and disposed of. 10. It is made clear that if any civil proceeding is there that will be decided in accordance with law as this order has been passed considering the criminal aspect of the matter only. 11. Pending petition, if any, is also disposed of.