- (1.) All these petitions have been filed by HDFC Bank Ltd. on same facts and for quashing different FIRs, hence are decided by a common order. The contention of the present petitioner in the petitions is that petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act and offering financial services to its customers. In the present cases, different amounts have been advanced to the respondents, but respondents has not paid the money and defaults are ranging from installments 6 to 21. The present petitioner has right to resume the possession of the vehicles in view of the term of the hire purchase agreement and after due intimation to the concerned police stations, vehicles have been repossessed as the respondents have neither produced vehicles for inspection nor paid the monthly installment. In the backdrop of these facts, impugned FIRs have been lodged against the present petitioner for the offence under Section 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and even under Section 379 and 392 IPC on the ground that they have dishonestly taken the possession of the vehicles whereas respondents are the defaulters and repossession has been rightly taken by the present petitioner, no offence has been committed by them hence the FIR be quashed. Per contra, the contention of the respondents is that present petitioner has no right to repossess the vehicle by way of muscle power and specific allegations have been lodged in the FIRs hence the FIRs are maintainable.
(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the impugned FIRs.
(3.) The contention of the present petitioner is that under the hire purchase-agreement, they have repossessed the vehicles and no criminal proceedings could be initiated for criminal breach of trust cheating or even for theft. Respondents are defaulters in payment and after intimation to the respondents and to the concerned police stations, vehicles have been repossessed and it is to put pressure on the petitioner, these FIRs have been lodged and to fortify his contention, reliance has been placed on Charanjit Singh Chadha & Ors. vs. Sudhir Mehra, 2001 AIR(SC) 3721wherein it has been held: Where the hire purchase agreement between the parties specifically gave authority to the non-banking finance Company to repossess the vehicle and their agents were given the right to enter any property or building wherein the motor vehicle was likely to be kept and under the hire purchase agreement, said Company continued to be the owners of the vehicle, no offence of cheating, criminal breach of trust or theft of vehicle could be said to have been committed by the Company, who was the owner of vehicle, when on failure of hirer to pay the installments due, the Company took possession of the vehicle from the motor mechanic who was in possession of vehicle for certain repairs to be carried out. The hire-purchase agreement in law is an executory contract of sale and confers no right in rem on hirer until the conditions for transfer of the property to him have been fulfilled. Therefore, the repossession of goods as per the term of the agreement may not amount to any criminal offence. Further reliance has been placed on K.A. Mathai @ Babu & Anr. vs. Kora Bibbikutty & Anr., 1996 7 SCC 212wherein it was held: ... the financier took possession of the bus from the complainant with the aid of the appellants. It cannot thus be said that the appellants, in any way, had committed the offence of theft and that too, with the requite mens rea and requisite dishonest intention. The assertion of rights and obligations, accruing to the appellants under the aforesaid two agreements, wiped out any dishonest pretence in that regard from which it could be inferred that they had done so with a guilty intention.;