(SHORT NOTE)
2007(2) Crimes 683 (M.P.)
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
S.S. Dwivedi, J.
Ashok Leyland Finance - Applicant
versus
Suresh Kumar Tiwari & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Revision No. 927 of 2005
Decided on 3-7-2006

IMPORTANT POINT
Finance Co. would have the right to take interim custody of vehicle financed by it under hire-purchase agreement where purchaser of vehicle committed defaults in repayment of loan instalments.

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 451 - Interim custody of vehicle - Vehicle purchased by non-applicant was financed by petitioner-applicant under hire-purchase agreement - Non-applicant defaulted in payment of Instalments and petitioner-applicant seized the vehicle - Non-applicant registered complaint and FIR u/s 395 1 Rs. was registered - Police seized the vehicle - Application for interim custody of vehicle by both parties - Applicant-petitioner was entitled to get interim custody of vehicle - Sessions Court wrongly allowed revision and set aside order directing release of vehicle in custody of petitioner.

       Held : Learned Counsel for the applicant has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Managing Director, Orix Auto Finance (India) Limited v. Shri Jagamander Singh and Another, 2006(II) MPWN 33, wherein. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held :

       “If agreements permit the financier to take possession of the financed vehicles, there is no legal impediment on such possession being taken.”

       9. The same view has taken by the Apex Court in Charanjit Singh Chadha and Others v. Sudhir Mehra, 2002(1) MPLJ 321, wherein it has been held by Their Lordships of the Apex Court that :

       “11. The whole case put forward by the respondent complainant is to be appreciated in view of the stringent terms incorporated in the agreement. If the hirer himself has committed default by not paying the instalments and under agreement the appellants have taken repossession of the vehicle, the respondent cannot have any grievance. The respondent cannot be permitted to say that the owner of the vehicle has committed theft of the vehicle or criminal breach of trust or cheating or criminal conspiracy as alleged in the complaint. When the agreement specifically says that the owner has got a right to repossess the vehicle, there cannot be any basis for alleging that the appellants have committed criminal breach of trust or cheating.”

       The same view has been taken by the Apex Court in K.A. Mathai @ Babu and Another v. Kora Bibbikutty and Another, (1996) 7 Supreme Court Cases 212 and in Trilok Singh and Others v. Satya Deo Tripathi, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 850, wherein it has been held the Financier Company has a right to take possession of the concerning vehicle wherein there is default of payment of instalment by the borrower.

       In view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the applicant is entitled to get the interim possession of the concerning vehicle and the learned Revisional Court has wrongly allowed the revision petition filed on behalf of non-applicant.

       Result : Revision Petition allowed.