Judgment :

1. This petition has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 22.6.2009 passed by the High Court of Assam at Gauhati in Criminal Revision No. 156 of 2009 rejecting the case of the petitioner against the respondents that they had forcibly taken the custody of the vehicle purchased by the petitioner on hire-purchase from them. The court has quashed the criminal proceedings against the respondents.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession and thus, committed a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been entertained by the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case No. 608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti Zen) be given to the petitioner vide order dated 17.3.2009. The High Court has wrongly quashed the criminal proceedings pending before the learned Magistrate.

3. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, has submitted that under the hire-purchase agreement, the financier remains the owner of the vehicle till the entire payment is made and, therefore, possession taken by the financier for non-payment of installments by the petitioner could not be held an offence. Thus, the High Court has rightly quashed the proceedings and no interference is required.

4. We have considered the rival submissions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

5. In TrilokSingh & Ors. v. Satya Deo Tripathi, AIR 1979 SC 850, this Court examined the similar case wherein the truck had been taken in possession by the financier 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 financier under Sections 395, 468, 465, 471, 12-B/34, I.P.C. The Court refused to exercise its power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. and did not quash the criminal proceedings on the ground that the financier had committed an offence. However, reversing the said judgment, this 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 financier 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.

6. In K.A. Mathai alias Babu & Anr. v. Kora Bibbikutty & Anr., (1996) 7 SCC 212, this Court had taken a similar view holding that in case of default to make payment of installments financier had a right to resume possession even if the hire purchase agreement does not contain a clause of resumption of possessionfor the reason that such a condition is to read in the agreement, In such an eventuality, it cannot be held that the financier had committed an offence of theft and that too, with the requisite mens rea and requisite dishonest intention. The assertions of rights and obligations accruing to the parties under the hire purchase agreement wipes out any dishonest pretence in that regard from which it cannot be inferred that financier had resumed the possession of the vehicle with a guilty intention.

7. In CharanjitSingh Chadha & Ors. v. Sudhir Mehra, (2001) 7 SCC 417, this Court held that recovery of possession of the vehicle by financier-owner as per terms of the hire purchase agreement, does not amount to a criminal offence. Such an agreement is an executory contract of sale conferring no right in rem on the hirer until the transfer of the property to him has been fulfilled and in case the default is committed by the hirer and possession of the vehicle is resumed by the financier, it