- (1.) INVOKING inherent jurisdiction of this court the petitioner who is now being prosecuted under section 379/506 of the Indian Penal Code relating to a case instituted otherwise on a police report before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 16th Court, Calcutta has now before this court for quashing of the said case.
(2.) GOING through the records more particularly through the petition of complaint, I find it is an admitted position the complainant on being financed by the petitioner under a hire purchase agreement has purchased a bus. According to the terms of the said agreement, the loan amount to be liquidated by payment of monthly instalments. The said hire purchase agreement amongst other contained a default clause and in terms thereof the financier is entitled to repossess the vehicle on the failure of the hirer to pay the instalments money. I find it is the case of the complainant after purchase, the vehicle developed some mechanical defect but in spite of repeated request the financier made no arrangement for repair. It is the further case that in spite of payment of several instalments, the petitioner has forcibly took away the vehicle from the possession of the complainant.
(3.) NOW from records, it appears that before repossessing the vehicle the notice was issued to the de facto complainant of the case, opposite party no. 2 and both the pre -repossession intimation and post repossession intimation were sent to the concerned police station. The position has not been disputed by the learned counsel of the opposite party except that relying on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manager, ICICI Bank Limited versus Prokash Kaur and Others, 2007 AIR(SC) 1349, he contended the recovery of bank loans and seizure of vehicle can only be done only through legal means and not in the way resort to by the petitioner. Thus from the rival submissions of the parties and materials available from the records, I find this is a case where the financier repossessed a vehicle invoking the default clause contained in the hire purchase agreement for non -payment of the instalments amount. Having regard to that no criminal offence can said to have been committed. In this regard reliance may be placed in the case of Trilok Singh and Ors. versus Satya Deo Tripathi, 1979 AIR(SC) 850 The view taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said case has been reaffirmed in the case of K.A. Mathai @ Babu and Anr. versus Kora Bibbikutty and Anr., 1996 7 SCC 212 as well as in the case of Charanjit Singh Chaddya versus Sudir Mehera, 2001 7 SCC 417.;