Back
2010 Supreme(Cal) 733
High Court Of Calcutta
S.P.Talukdar, J.
Raj Amitava Mitra -Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal -Respondent
Appeal No : C.R.R. No. 4004 of 2009
Decided on : July 02, 2010
Advocate Appeared:
Debasish Roy, Kaushik Chatterji, Kasem Ali Ahmad, Rajdeep Majumdar, Jagadish Das, Kushal Mukherjee, Aniruddha Datta
The court's discretion to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure includes the application of principles of self-defense and self-redress, and the interpretation of loan agreements to determine the rights and obligations of the parties.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - QUASHING OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS - SECTION 482 - COURT'S DISCRETION TO QUASH PROCEEDINGS - APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES OF SELF-DEFENCE AND SELF-REDRESS - INTERPRETATION OF CAR LOAN AGREEMENT - RIGHT TO REPOSSESS VEHICLE IN CASE OF DEFAULT - DISTINCTION BETWEEN FORCIBLE REPOSSESSION AND RECOURSE TO LAW - ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW - QUASHING OF PROCEEDINGS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, associated with HDFC Bank, were accused of forcibly repossessing a car from the complainant, who had defaulted on his loan payments. The complainant filed a complaint before the court, which was treated as a First Information Report, and the petitioners were charged with various offenses, including mischief, extortion, criminal trespass, and causing hurt.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations made in the complaint were improbable and inconsistent, and that the petitioners had acted within their rights under the car loan agreement, which allowed them to repossess the vehicle in case of default. The court also found that the complainant had been unresponsive to the bank's communications and had shown calculated indifference or willful negligence in repaying the loan.
Issues: - Whether the petitioners' actions in repossessing the car amounted to criminal offenses.- Whether the complainant's complaint was based on sound rational basis.- Whether the continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law and result in miscarriage of justice.
Ratio Decidendi: - The court held that the petitioners were justified in repossessing the car in accordance with the terms of the loan agreement, which recognized their right to do so in the event of default.- The court distinguished between forcible repossession and recourse to law, holding that the petitioners were not permitted to use force or hire goons to repossess the vehicle.- The court found that the complainant's complaint was improbable and inconsistent, and that he had not responded to the bank's communications or made any effort to repay the loan.- The court held that the continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law and result in miscarriage of justice.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitioners' application and quashed the criminal proceedings against them.
S.P.Talukdar, J
1. The petitioners by filing The instant application under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure sought for quashing of The proceeding, being Jadavpur P.S. case No. 539 of 2009 dated 14th October, 2009, corresponding to B.G. R. No. 5174 of 2009, now pending before The Learned Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipur, 24 Parganas (S) under Sections 323/386/427/406/504/506/34 of The Indian Penal Code. The crux of The controversy, As raised In The instant application, is whether or not following Mechiavellian code of ethics, this Court would accept that "ends justify The means".
2. The people of this country are groomed with The ideas and thoughts of Mahatma Gandhi, The Father of The Nation. He believed, that 'right means must be employed to achieve right ends'. The backdrop of The present case is : -
Opposite party No. 2 filed a petition of complaint before The Learned Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipur, 24Parganas (S) with The prayer for referring The said complaint to police authority for investigation after treating The same As The First Information Report under Section 156 (3) of The Code of Criminal Procedure. Claiming to be The owner of Hyundai Accent Car, being registration No. WB 02L-2002, he admitted that he purchased The same by taking loan from HDFC Bank Limited In The month of July, 2008. It was a second hand car. He took loan of an amount of Rs. 1,90,000/- on The terms and conditions that The said amount with interest could be repaid by monthly instalments of Rs. 5,811/-. He went on paying The E.M.I. and It was last paid on 9th September, 2009. On 22nd September, 2009 at about 1.30 P.M., when he was coming from Garia and moving towards Jadavpur, The accused Nos. 3 and 4 came In front of The car near Ganguli Bagan bus stop and stopped The car under leadership of accused Nos. 1 and 2. Some miscreants forcibly opened The door of The car and wrongfully trespassed inside. They abused him In filthy language and assaulted him with fists and blows. He was, thereafter, thrown out of The car. They forced him to sign In The surrender letter and thereafter, left with The car As well As The original documents like blue book, driving licence, tax token etc. which were inside The vehicle. Failing to contact Officers of The HDFC Bank, he approached The Jadavpur Police Station and lodged a written complaint. He was advised by The concerned police authority to approach The Court In order to obtain necessary legal order. Since he sustained injury, he was advised by The police personnel to go to M.R. Bangur Hospital for necessary medical treatment. He alleged that all The accused persons being The petitioners herein thus committed The offence of mischief, extortion, criminal trespass and also voluntarily caused hurt In collusion with each other to The complainant/opposite party No. 2 and criminally intimidated him. They also forced him to put his signature on The purported surrender letter.
3. The Learned Court In response to The prayer made by opposite party No.2, being The complainant before The Learned Court, referred The matter to The concerned police authority for investigation. This gave rise to registration of The Jadavpur P.S. case No. 539 dated 14thOctober,2009 corresponding to B.G.R. 5174 of 2009, now pending before Learned Court of ACJM, Alipur, 24 Parganas (S).
4. Mr. Debasish Roy, Learned Counsel appearing for The petitioners submitted that The entire case is based on factual misrepresentation and The case had been cooked up on The basis of wild allegations with The sole intention to bypass The legitimate claim of The concerned bank. He further submitted that The present petitioners being associated with The HDFC Bank Limited could have had hardly any involvement In The alleged crime.
Mr. Roy submitted that In May, 2008, The opposite party No.2/complainant, approached The concerned bank for providing him with a loan for purchase a four-wheeler. The said application
