- (1.) THE petitioners are accused in CCNo.708 of 1985 on the file of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate-IV, Salem, initiated by the respondent on a complaint from one M.Bharathan on 103.1986 alleging that on 25.7.1983 at about 2.30 P.M. fifty persons belonging to Lakshmi Trade Credits Ltd., Madras took away his lorry bearing Registration No. TNL 3465, in the process of which they tried to attack him as well. According to the first informant, he ran away while the group of persons took away the vehicle. It is also stated in the first information report that Bharathan had already preferred a complaint on 25.7.1983 at the Mallur Police Station, on which no action had been taken.
(2.) THE first information report dated 10.3.1986 had been registered as Crime No.89 of 1988 for an offence under Sec.379, I.P.C., on the file of Mallur Police Station and after investigation, a charge-sheet had been filed before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate-IV, Salem, against the petitioners for an offence under Sec.379, I.P.C.,on 30.4.1988 which had been taken on file as C.C.No.708 of 1985. This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in the aforementioned calendar case. A few more facts need narration before disposing of this petition. Bharathan, the first informant, even in 1983 filed O.S.No.1366 of 1983 on the file of the Additional District Munsif-in-Charge, Salem, against Lakshmi Trade Credits Ltd., Madras for a declaration and permanent injunction. In I.A.No.1653 of 1983 in the said suit, Bharathan prayed for an injunction restraining the respondent (Lakshmi Trade Credits Ltd., Madras) and their men from in anyway alienating or encumbering the lorry bearing Registration No.TNL 3465, which belonged to him, by means of a temporary injunction. Though the suit is pending, the temporary injunction petition was heard after the respondent therein filed a counter, and by order dated 20.6.1984, the District Munsif dismissed the prayer. In the course of the order, the District Munsif has found that on the admitted hire purchase agreement entered into by Bharathan with the respondent (therein) dated 3.11.1978 which had been renewed on 18.5.1981, Lakshmi Trade Credits Ltd., continued to be the owner of the vehicle till the instalments were fully paid and was also entitled to repossess the vehicle in case of default as provided in the agreement itself marked in the proceedings as Ex.B1. A specific finding has also been given that in terms of the agreement, Ex.B1, Lakshmi Trade Credits seems to have a right to repossess the vehicle. Aggrieved by the order of the District Munsif, Bharathan preferred C.M.ANo.31 of 1984 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem, which was also dismissed on 14.10.1985, confirming the order of the trial Court. This appears to have become final since Bharathan did not take further steps to challenge the order of the Sub Court, Salem. It is only after the termination of all these proceedings that Bharathan had thought fit to complain to the respondent on 10.3.1986 on the basis of which the first information report was registered, culminating in the charge-sheet dated 30.4.1988, leading to the prosecution in C.C.No. 708 of 1988 on the file of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate-IV, Salem. The petitioners are employees in Lakshmi Trade Credits Ltd. It is rather unfortunate that in the complaint preferred by Bharathan, he had not stated anything about the prior civil litigation between the parties and the verdict of the civil Courts. By suppressing these details, he has preferred a complaint which again, without proper investigation, has resulted in this prosecution. It is seen from the finding of the civil Court that Bharathan owes Lakshmi Trade Credits Ltd., several instalments in terms of the hire purchase agreement. If Bharathan is aggrieved, and it is his case that he has paid all the instalments due on the hire purchase agreement, it is for him to agitate the matter in the civil Court to enforce his rights whatever they may be.
(3.) ON the facts, there is no doubt whatsoever that Bharathan had entered into a hire purchase agreement with Lakshmi Trade Credits Ltd., on 3.11.1978, which has again been renewed in 1981. It is not disputed that the truck was seized on 25.7.1983, but it is the definite case of Lakshmi Trade Credits that it was so seized in terms of the agreement which gives them a right to repossess the vehicle for non-payment of the instalments. In case of hire purchase, it is a matter of common knowledge that in default of any one of the monthly instalments, the financier has a right to terminate the hire purchase agreement even without notice and seize the vehicle. ON the facts of this case, such a right has been found in favour of Lakshmi Trade Credits Ltd., by the civil Court. From the facts detailed above, it is seen that the dispute raised by Bharathan is purely of a civil nature, in spite of his suppression of civil proceedings. Even assuming that the petitioners either by themselves or in the company of others went and seized the truck on 25.7.1983 near Panamara-thupatti, they could and did claim to have done so in exercise, of their bona fide right of seizing the lorry, on the failure of Bharathan to pay the monthly instalments due on the hire purchase agreement. Obviously, a bona fide claim of right led to the seizure of the lorry, and this has been affirmed by the civil Court. On the face of the complaint itself, which has suppressed the civil litigation, and which must have come out during the investigation by the respondent, there is no material whatsoever to prosecute the petitioners for theft of the vehicle. That there is no bona fides in the launching of the complaint is also patent in view of preferring the complaint on 10.3.1986 after the termination of the civil proceedings which went against Bharathan on 14.10.1985. In my opinion, on the facts and circumstances detailed above, the criminal proceeding deserves to be quashed. The petition is allowed and the aforementioned prosecution is hereby quashed. ;