The police are not justified in not registering a case or investigating a matter where there is sufficient evidence to suggest that an offence has been committed.

1. Mr. Chel, learned advocate appears on behalf of the petitioner and submits a car purchased under hire purchase agreement with the respondent no. 7 was forcibly taken away by the financier upon assaulting the petitioner on 6th November, 2008. The petitioner filed this writ petition and obtained order dated 2nd February, 2009. The reasons for direction being made therein are set out below :-

“Since it has been fairly admitted that private respondent nos. 7 and 8 obtained possession of the vehicle without following the due process of law and only relying on the terms of the agreement with the writ petitioner, the matter has to be looked into. The respondent nos. 7 & 8 submit that the vehicle had been sold in the month of November, 2008 and a consideration of Rs. 1.60 lacs approximately has been received. The respondent nos. 7 & 8 are directed to put in such sum of Rs. 1.60 lacs with the Registrar General and the Registrar General is directed to put in such money by way of a fixed deposit for the shortest possible term renewable for such short duration, pending orders of Court.”

2. The petitioner has prayed for orders on allegation of police inaction. The petitioner seeks directions upon the respondent nos. 4 and 5 to take steps against the private respondent no. 7 as per complaint dated 10th November, 2008 and to recover vehicle bearing registration, Mr. Chel submits, W.B. 16T/1567. Mr. Chel submits further, the police Authorities have not done anything. They have not even registered a case.

3. Mr. Behani, learned advocate appears on behalf of the State and submits, he awaits further instructions. Instructions had at the present time are to the effect that the financier claimed ownership of the vehicle under hire purchase agreement and, therefore, till now no steps had been taken.

4. Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appears on behalf of the private respondent and relies on judgments of the Supreme Court and one delivered by a learned Single Judge of this Court. He relies on the case of K. A. Mathai alias Babu & Anr. vs. Kora Bibbikutty & Anr. reported in (1996) 7 SCC 212 to submit, the Supreme Court had declared, a hire purchase agreement normally drawn would have contained the clause that in the event of the failure to make payment of instalments the financier had the right to resume possession of the vehicle. It, thus, cannot be said the financier in that case having, with the aid of the appellants, taken possession of the vehicle from the complainant, the appellants had committed the offence of theft and that too, with the requisite mens rea and requisite dishonest intention. He then relies on the case of Aleque Padamsee & Ors. vs. Union of India reported in (2007) 6 SCC 171 to, in particular, paragraphs 7 and 8 therein to submit that a person alleging commission of cognizable offence and consequent police inaction had to seek remedy under the provisions of Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. He submits, therefore, the writ petition was not maintainable. He also relies on an unreported judgment dated 13th August, 2014 delivered in the case of Basim Bhattacharya vs. Union of India & Ors. by a learned Single Judge of this Court which in relying on, inter alia, K.A. Mathai (supra) dismissed the writ petition alleging police inaction.

5. K.A. Mathai (supra) is a case where the Supreme Court had observed that in the case of resumption of possession under hire purchase agreement, where hire purchase agreements are normally drawn to contain the resumption clause, it could not be said that the appellants in the case before the said Court, in aiding the financier to repossess the vehicle, had committed the offence of theft with requisite mens rea and requisite dishonest intention. The allegation of offence, as it appears form the said judgment, was brought against the appellants who were the driver and the registered owner of the bus as separate from the financier under a hire purchase agreement. That ca

Click Here to Read the rest of this document