- (1.) This petition has been filed for quashing the recovery to be made by the respondent Bank vide letter dated 26.10.2005 and to issue a direction to release and hand over the four-wheeler seized by the said respondent in arbitrary manner.
(2.) The writ petition is not maintainable as the respondent Bank is not a scheduled Bank and it is not amenable to writ jurisdiction. Even otherwise, it is a case of higher purchase agreement wherein the status of the petitioner is merely a bailee and not the owner of the vehicle. It has been pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel that in such a situation, the Bank remains the owner of the vehicles unless the installments are duly paid by the bailee.
(3.) In Trilok Singh & Ors. v. Satya Deo Tripathi, AIR 1979 SC 850 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the similar case wherein the truck had been taken in possession by the Financer in terms of hire purchase agreement, as there was a default in making the payment of installments. A criminal case had been lodged against the Financer under Sections 395, 468, 465, 471, 12-B/34, I.P.C. This Court refused to exercise its power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. and did not quash the criminal proceedings on the ground that the Financer had committed an offence. However, reversing the said judgment, the Apex Court held that proceedings initiated were clearly an abuse of process of the Court. The dispute involved was purely of civil nature, even if the allegations made by the complainant were substantially correct. Under the hire purchase agreement, the Financer had made the payment of huge money and he was in fact the owner of the vehicle. The terms and conditions incorporated in the agreement gave rise in case of dispute only to civil rights and in such a case, the Civil Court must decide as what was the meaning of those terms and conditions.;