SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Cal) 1189

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Shampa Dutt Paul, J.
Branch Manager, Tata Motors Finance Limited & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
State Of West Bengal & Anr. - Respondents
Criminal Revision No. 261 of 2019
Decided On : 14-12-2022

Advocates appeared:
Tirthankar Dey, Advocate, A. Ganguly, Advocate, Debjani Sahu, Advocate

The court held that the present proceedings were an abuse of the process of law and quashed the complaint case under Sections 467/471/474/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code - Sections 467/471/474/120B/34 - The court analyzed the provisions of the Indian Penal Code relating to offences of forgery, using forged documents, and criminal conspiracy. It referred to various judgments of the Supreme Court to interpret and apply these provisions in the present case. The court held that the facts did not make out a criminal offence and quashed the proceedings under these sections.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner company is engaged in the business of providing financial facilities to its customers for purchase of vehicles. A complaint was filed against the petitioners and other co-accused persons alleging commission of offences under Sections 467/471/474/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner claimed that the opposite party defaulted in making timely repayment of the loan installments and the company repossessed the vehicle as per the order of the arbitrator. The present case was initiated long after the repossession of the vehicle, and the petitioner sought quashing of the proceedings on the grounds of abuse of process of law.

Finding of the Court:

The court analyzed the hire purchase agreement, the order and award of the arbitrator, and various judgments of the Supreme Court. It observed that the complainant had failed to perform his part of the agreement and that the facts did not make out a criminal offence. The court referred to the guidelines laid down in the case of Priyanka Srivastava and held that the present case was a fit case for quashing the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the present proceedings were an abuse of the process of law and quashed the complaint case under Sections 467/471/474/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Result: The proceedings in Durgapur Police Station Case No. 178 of 2018 were quashed.

JUDGMENT

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J. - This revisional application is for quashing of proceedings in Durgapur Police Station Case No. 178 of 2018 dated 29.04.2018 corresponding to G.R. No. 611 of 2018 pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durgapur under Sections 467/471/474/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The petitioner company is engaged in the business of providing financial facilities to its various customers for purchase of vehicles including commercial vehicles amongst others.

3. Durgapur Police Station Case No. 178 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. NO. 611 of 2018 was lodged against the petitioners and other co-accused persons pursuant to an order passed in an application filed by the opposite party no. 2 under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durgapur alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 467/471/474/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The case as made out in the written complaint is to the effect that the defacto complainant/opposite party no. 2 entered into a Loan cum Hypothecation agreement with the petitioner company being agreement no. 5001140045 dated 02.08.2013 for purchase of a vehicle having registration no. WB 39A-7905.

5. The defacto complainant was regularly paying the monthly installments but with ulterior motive the said company refused to accept the loan installments. The accused nos. 1, 2 and 3 on 18.04.2015 seized the vehicle having registration no. WB39A-7905 and kept it in a parking yard.

6. The accused persons/company, after careful scrutiny of all documents submitted by the opposite party no. 2 and upon ascertaining the financial credentials, age, qualifications and employment of the said opposite party no. 2 had sanctioned a commercial vehicle loan.

7. The company agreed to finance a sum of Rs. 18,50,000/- to the opposite party no. 2 for the purchase of the said (truck) vehicle. It was agreed that the opposite party no. 2 would clear off his financial liabilities by paying Rs. 15,000/- for the first month, Rs. 59,000/- per month for the second to twenty sixth month, Rs. 51,000/- per month for the twenty seventh to thirty sixth month and Rs. 48,289/- per month for the rest thirty seventh to forty fifth month commencing from 2nd March, 2013. An agreement which included an Arbitration clause was executed by and between the parties.

8. It is the case of the petitioner that the opposite party no. 2/complainant defaulted in making timely repayment of the loan installments and inspite of repeated request, the opposite party no. 2 did not clear the outstanding dues and was then categorized by the petitioner/company as a wilful defaulter. A cheque bearing no. 787622 dated 4th August, 2014 for Rs. 14,65,197.63/- issued by the opposite party towards the outstanding dues was returned unpaid by the bank. A proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act was initiated and is pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durgapur being CRR/421/2014.

9. The dispute was then referred by the petitioner/company to the Sole Arbitrator, Sri P.C. Phalgunan. The company preferred an application under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the learned Arbitrator by his order dated 18.04.2015 was pleased to observe that the said company/claimant may repossess the hypothecated vehicle and sell/transfer the vehicle for realization of the outstanding loan amount.

10. Inspite of the order of the learned Arbitrator dated 18.04.2015 the opposite party no. 2 refused to make payment. The company then had no option but to execute the order dated 18.04.2015 whereby the vehicle in question was peacefully repossessed on 15.05.2015 upon due compliance with the necessary norms. Both pre and post repossession intimations were given to the jurisdictional Police station. Subsequently the said company had disposed off the said vehicle strictly in conformity with the specific stipul

            Click Here to Read the rest of this document
            1
            2
            3
            4
            5
            6
            7
            8
            9
            10
            11
            SupremeToday Portrait Ad
            supreme today icon
            logo-black

            An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

            Please visit our Training & Support
            Center or Contact Us for assistance

            qr

            Scan Me!

            India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

            For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

            whatsapp-icon Back to top