IMPORTANT POINT
When a financier under a hire purchase scheme seizes the vehicle on default in payment of installment, no criminal prosecution can be launched by buyer.

ORDER

B.N. Patnalk, J. - This is a petition filed under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the F.I.R. in crime No. 42/96 of Mukkom Police Station.

2. The petitioner is the proprietor of M/s. Kothari Investment, Madras. The firm is engaged in the business of the financing the intending purchase of motor vehicles. The firm advanced certain amounts to one Chandran to purchase the vehicle KLZ 8145 on a hire purchase agreement. The petitioner also advanced a loan to one Balakrishnan to purchase vehicle No. KRD 2799 on hire-purchase agreement. Sri Balakrishnan, stood as surety for the loan amount taken by Chandran. One of the conditions of the hire-purchase agreement with Balakrishnan is that in case of default in payment of installment dues by Chandran his vehicle (KLZ 8145) can also be seized. While the hire purchase agreement was in force, Chandran sold the vehicle to one Raghupathi Raghupathi in turn sold the vehicle to the complainant in, the said crime case, who 1s the first respondent herein. It, is admitted in the complaint petition that the sum of Rs. 4,500/- was still due to the petitioner in terms of the hire-purchase agreement in respect of vehicle No. KLZ 8145. It is alleged by the first respondent that he had sent the vehicle to the workshop for some repairs. While the vehicle was being kept in the premises of the workshop, namely, Vanamali Body Builders, Mukkom, the petitioner along with 7 others forcibly took away the vehicle without heeding to the protest, of the

workers employed in the workshop. It is further stated in the F.I.R. that the first respondent came to know that the vehicle was seized on account of the facts that the owner of the vehicle KRD 2799, namely, Balakrishanan had committed default in payment of the instalment dues to the petitioner, The first respondent requested the petitioner and others to return the vehicle but it was not done. Hence a complaint petition was filed in the court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate. Tamarassery. I alleging an offence under S. 395 IPC against the petitioner and others. It was sent to the police under S. 156 Crl. PC. for investigation. Accordingly, the police registered the crime case.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that no prima facie case has been made out under S. 395 IPC against the petitioner. The petitioner re-possessed the vehicle in terms of the conditions of the hire purchase agreement.

4. Learned counsel for the first respondent has contended that the matter is still under investigation and since the first respondent is not a party to the agreement between the petitioner and Chandran he is not bound to the terms and conditions of the hire purchase agreement. Further, it is contended that the provisions Of S, 482 Crl. P.C. cannot be invoked inasmuch as the allegations in the complaint petition show that the petitioner is guilty of the crime under S. 395 IPC.

5. The only point for consideration is whether this is fit case in, which the criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed.

6. There is no dispute that the vehicle in question was purchased by. Chandran on getting a Joan from the petitioner under a hire purchase agreement. A copy of the hire purchase agreement has been produced. As usual, one of the conditions laid down therein is that the petitioner shall be at liberty to repossess the vehicle in the event of any default in payment of any instalment' dues. It has been clearly stated in the F.I.R. that some instatement dues were outstanding against Sri Chandran when he sold the vehicle to Raghupathi. It is also pointed out in the F.I.R. that at least one instatement amount was due to be paid to the petitioner when the vehicle was repossessed by him. In view of these condisputed facts, it cannot be said that any crime has been committed by the petitioner. The Supreme Court as well as this court had occasion to consider such questions. In Sardar Trilik Singh v. Satrya Deo Tripathi1, the Supreme Court held that w