Back
1967 Supreme(Cal) 218
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
N. C. TALUKDAR, J.
Rajendra Kumar Ruia - Petitioner
v.
State of W.B. - Opposite Party
Criminal Revn. Case No. 1046 of 1966
Decided on: 27-9-1967.
S.S. Mukherjee and Soumendra Nath Mukherjee, for Petitioner;
D.N. Ghosh, for Opposite Party.
The mere non-payment of instalments under a hire-purchase agreement does not constitute a criminal offence.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL REVISION - HIRE-PURCHASE AGREEMENT - OWNERSHIP OF VEHICLE - DISHONESTY - ABUSE OF PROCESS OF COURT - QUASHING OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS - [SECTION 411, I.P.C.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a partner in a finance company, entered into a hire-purchase agreement with the complainant for the purchase of a taxi cab. The complainant defaulted on the payments, and the petitioner took possession of the vehicle. The complainant filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner under Section 411, I.P.C., for dishonest receipt or retention of stolen property. The petitioner filed a revision petition in the High Court, challenging the framing of the charge against him.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the petitioner was not the owner of the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement, which was a financing transaction. The Court also held that there was no dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner to constitute an offence under Section 411, I.P.C. The Court further held that the continuance of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be an abuse of the process of the court, as the parties had already settled the matter in a civil suit.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was the owner of the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement? 2. Whether there was dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner to constitute an offence under Section 411, I.P.C.? 3. Whether the continuance of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be an abuse of the process of the court?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the petitioner was not the owner of the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement, which was a financing transaction. The Court relied on the terms and conditions of the agreement, which provided that the petitioner had the right to seize the vehicle in case of default by the complainant. 2. The Court held that there was no dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner to constitute an offence under Section 411, I.P.C. The Court relied on the fact that the petitioner had acted in accordance with the terms of the hire-purchase agreement. 3. The Court held that the continuance of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be an abuse of the process of the court, as the parties had already settled the matter in a civil suit.
Final Decision: The High Court made the rule absolute and quashed the charge framed against the petitioner as well as the criminal proceedings, so far as the said petitioner was concerned.
This revisional application is under Sections 439 and 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure against an order passed by Shri B. Roy Chowdhury, Magistrate, First Class, Alipore, 24 Parganas, on 1-8-66 in case No. G.R. 2478 of 1965/T.B. No. 28 of 1966 framing a charge against the petitioner under Section 411, I.P.C.
2. The facts leading on to the present rule may be put in a short compass. The present petitioner, Rajendra Kumar Ruia, is the partner of Messrs. Shri Annapurna Credit Co., which is a firm of financiers. Through an agreement dated the 7th July, 1961, purporting to be a hire-purchase agreement, a copy whereof has been marked as Annexure "A" to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, entered into between the complainant Sudhindra Kumar Sengupta as the hirer on one part and Messrs. Shri Annapurna Credit Co. as the owners on the other part, a taxi cab being Taxi Cab No. WET 1298, was purchased by the above-mentioned complainant undertaking to pay the price thereof by regular monthly instalments of Rs. 690 with an initial payment of Rs. 710.50p. in the first month. On the 27th April 1965 a written complaint was lodged at the Jadavpur Police Station by the complainant to the effect that he is the owner of the Taxi Cab No. WBT 1298 and Haradhan Das, the co-accused, is the driver; that on 26-4-65 the said Haradhan took away the Taxi upon signing the Garage Register for plying the same and return it at night but he failed to do so and that on 27-4-65 when the complainant went to his place and enquired about the taxi and the money, the said accused Haradhan Das asked the complainant to get out of his house. After investigation a charge-sheet was submitted under S. 406, I.P.C., against the said driver and under Sec. 411, I.P.C., against the accused petitioner.
3. In the meantime Messrs. Shri Annapurna Credit Co., the aforesaid financier firm, as the plaintiff, filed a suit in the Original Side of the High Court, being Commercial Cause Suit No. 708 of 1965, against the present complainant as well as the guarantor, as parties defendants, for declaration of title and possession, appointment of a Receiver, Accounts and decree for the balance of unpaid hire-purchase sum of Rs. 5,500 and for costs, etc. In the said suit a Receiver was appointed by this Hon'ble Court and he was directed to take possession of the vehicle and to sell the same. Ultimately, a decree on compromise was passed in the said suit on 5-8-66 for a sum of Rs. 5,500, a copy whereof has been marked as Annexure 'B' to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the accused-petitioner.
4. Thereafter, the case proceeded before the learned trying Magistrate and on 1-8-66 a charge under Section 406, I.P.C., was framed against the co-accused Haradhan Das and one under Section 411, I.P.C., was framed against the present petitioner whereto the accused persons pleaded not guilty. An application was filed on behalf of the present petitioner on the 4th May, 1966, praying that the trial of the present case be stayed till the disposal of the suit instituted in the Original Side of the High Court over the same subject-matter. But the learned trying Magistrate by his order dated 1-8-66 rejected the said prayer. Against that order the present Rule was issued for quashing the charge.
5. Mr. Sudhangsu Sekhar Mukherjee, Advocate (with Mr. Soumendranath Mukherjee, Advocate) appearing on behalf of the accused-petitioner, contended in the first place that the present petitioner who is the partner of a financier firm styled as Messrs. Shri Annapurna Credit Co., is the owner of the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement duly executed between the parties on 7-7-61 and as such there is no question of his having committed any offence under Section 411, I.P.C., with regard to the said property. Moreover, there have been admittedly defaults in payment on the part of the complainant and in terms of condition 5 of the hire-purchase agreement the accused-petitioner a
