Back
2006 Supreme(Cal) 783
High Court Of Calcutta
Before Mr. Justice Prabuddha Sankar Banerjee
KOUSIK BHATTACHARYA - Appellant
Versus
NARAYAN CHANDRA GIRI - Respondent
C. R. R. 994 Of 2005
Decided On : 12/12/2006
ARNAB DEB, P.K.SRIVASTAV
A financier has the right to repossess a vehicle in case of default of payment as per a hire purchase agreement, and criminal proceedings are not maintainable for such disputes when the aggrieved party has already sought relief before the appropriate civil forum.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL REVISION - QUASHING OF PROCEEDINGS - SECTION 482 - HIRE PURCHASE AGREEMENT - DEFAULT IN REPAYMENT - POSSESSION OF VEHICLE BY FINANCIER - MAINTAINABILITY OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS - CIVIL NATURE OF DISPUTE - ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW - INHERENT POWER OF THE COURT - ARINDAM BASU V. AMAL KUMAR BASU (M.A.T. NO. 1611 OF 2001) - CHARANJIT SINGH CHADHA V. SUDHIR MEHRA (2001 (7) SCC 417) - MANIPAL FINANCE LTD. V. T. BANGARAPPA (1994 SUPP. (1) SCC 507) - SARDAR TRILOK SINGH V. SATYADEO TRIPATI (1979 (4) SCC 396) - K.A. MATHAI V. KORA BIBIKUTI (1996 (7) SCC 212).
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, accused in a complaint case for alleged offences under Sections 379/504 of the Indian Penal Code, filed a revisional application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, seeking to quash the proceedings. The complaint arose from a dispute over a hire purchase agreement between the complainant (opposite party) and the petitioners (Magma Leasing Ltd.). The complainant alleged that the petitioners had wrongfully taken possession of the vehicle financed under the agreement. The petitioners contended that the complainant had defaulted on the repayment of instalments and that they were entitled to repossess the vehicle as per the terms of the agreement.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the dispute between the parties was purely civil in nature and that the complainant had already opted for his relief before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. The court relied on the decision in Arindam Basu v. Amal Kumar Basu (M.A.T. No. 1611 of 2001) and other precedents to hold that the financier has the right to get lawful possession of the vehicle in case of default of payment as per the hire purchase agreement. The court also found that the complainant had not specifically denied the default in repayment of the loan amount and that the petitioners had duly informed the complainant and the police about the repossession of the vehicle.
Issues: 1. Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioners were maintainable considering the civil nature of the dispute and the complainant's recourse to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum? 2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to repossess the vehicle in question due to the complainant's default in repayment of instalments as per the hire purchase agreement? 3. Whether the issuance of a warrant of arrest against one of the petitioners was an abuse of process of law due to an incorrect address being mentioned in the complaint?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the criminal proceedings were not maintainable as the dispute was essentially civil in nature and the complainant had already sought relief before the appropriate forum, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. 2. The court relied on the terms of the hire purchase agreement and the precedents cited to hold that the petitioners were entitled to repossess the vehicle due to the complainant's default in repayment of instalments. 3. The court found that the issuance of a warrant of arrest against one of the petitioners was an abuse of process of law as the address mentioned in the complaint was incorrect.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revisional application and quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. The petitioners were granted the liberty to approach the proper forum for getting back the vehicle in question.
( 2 ) THE said complaint case was brought by the present opposite party/ respondent No. 1 against the present petitioners for alleged offence under sections 379/504 of the Indian Penal Code.
( 3 ) THE facts giving rise to filing of the said complaint case may be epitomized thus: -
(i) The opposite party/respondent No. 1 approached the Magma leasing Ltd. having its head office at 24, Park Street, Kolkata through its Branch Office at Kharagpur for providing financial assistance to purchase a vehicle. The said Magma Leasing Ltd. is a Non-Banking financial Institution which is incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and the opposite party No. 1 approached the said institution in the month of August 2003 for the said financial assistance.
(ii) Subsequently, a hire purchase agreement was executed in between the complainant and the respondent on 14. 8. 2003 wherein it was agreed that towards re-payment of its dues, the respondent No. 2 would pay at the rate of Rs 18. 226/- per month for 35 instalments and at the rate of Rs. 16,340/- per month for 12 instalments. Subsequently, after the release of the amount, the opposite party No. 1 was provided with a vehicle which was registered as WB-29-5087.
(iii) The opposite party No 1 was irregular in payment of the instalments and accordingly the present petitioner issued a notice dated 6. 1. 2005 calling upon the opposite party/respondent No. 1 to pay the amount. In spite of receiving the said notice, the opposite party/ respondent No 1 did not pay the amount and as such, the present petitioners took over possession of the vehicle on 24. 1. 2005. The present petitioners sent telegram to the opposite party No. 1 and Police Station regarding the said fact (re-possession)
.
( 4 ) THE opposite party No. 1 suppressing all such facts lodged one complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purba Midnapur for alleged offence under Sections 379/504 of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioners. In the said complaint the opposite party No. 1 took the plea that he is the registered owner of the vehicle in question (Truck) having registration No. WB-29-5087 after entering into an hire purchase agreement with M/s. Magma Leasing Limited and was running the said truck He also made averment in the said complaint that he was paying instalments regularly as agree. d by the parties. On 24. 1. 2005 the present petitioners took away the said vehicle from Haldia Mecheda Road. In all 7/8 unknown persons took part in the said snatching, They also took away all the documents from the Driver who was forced to sign over a yellow paper and some other white papers. The opposite party No. 1 was informed about the said incident by the Driver who immediately went to Sutahata Police Station. The Officer-in-Charge asked the opposite party No. 1 to settle the disputes. Finding no other alternative the complainant i. e. opposite party No. 1 went to Kharagpur branch office on the next day and found the truck in question there with loaded sand. He was also told by Officer-in-Charge, Kharagpur Police Station to settle the disputes and thereafter he came to the office of petitioner No. 2 at Kolkata. He also lodged a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tamluk which was numbered as 18/2005. The said case is still pending.
( 5 ) THE learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after taking cognizance of the offence transferred the case to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Third Court, tamluk for disposal. The learned Magistrate thereafter examined the witnesses on S. A. and after being satisfied issued process against the present petitioners for alleged offence under Sections 379/504 of the Indian Penal Code.
( 6 ) THE learned Magistrate also o
