The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of vicarious liability in criminal law and the legality of actions taken by a finance company in relation to loan defaults.

JUDGMENT :

ANANYA BANDYOPADHYAY, J.

1. The instant revisional application has been filed by petitioner praying for quashing of the proceeding of Complaint Case No. 39C of 2011 under Section 347 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the Court of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Howrah.

2. The petitioner’s grievance is against a complaint filed by the opposite party no. 2 which inter-alia stated as follows:

(a) The complainant/opposite party no. 2 availed a loan of Rs. 11,35,000/- from Tata Motors Finance Limited which was sanctioned on 28.02.2009 for a period of 46 months.

(b) The complainant/opposite party no. 2 returned a sum of Rs. 3,54,950/- against the outstanding dues till the date of filing of the complaint case. The last date of such payment was on 29.11.2010.

(c) Thereafter the complainant/opposite party no. 2 proposed to settle the issue with the company amicably and the same was placed before the Lok Adalat held at the Judges' Court at Hooghly on 11.12.2010 vide (PLC No. 4415/12/2010) for its settlement. However, the Advocate appearing for the company did not settle the matter declaring her incapacity.

(d) Thereafter, on 18.12.2010 the company seized the complainant/opposite party no. 2's truck bearing registration no. WB-15A-6693, chassis no. 444027LSZ 744590, Engine No. 697TC57LSZ8A3766 at Dankuni and has parked the seized truck at Chamriel within Liluah P. S. and issued a receipt gleaning the signature of the driver.

3. Petitioner stated that the complainant/opposite party no. 2 approached the Court of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Howrah to register a complaint under the provisions of Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 347/392/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Subsequently the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Howrah after taking cognizance issued summons in the aforesaid complaint case.

5. Apparently that the complainant/opposite party no. 2 and Tata Motors Finance Limited had entered into a Loan Agreement for financing the commercial vehicle purchased by the complainant/opposite party no. 2 under certain terms and conditions more fully described in the Agreement.

6. Heard the submissions of Learned Amicus Curiae for both the parties.

7. The Learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the petitioner submitted that the principle of vicarious liability cannot be applicable to offences under the Indian Penal Code. It is only when an officer of a company is personally liable for commission of an offence done in exercise of his official duties that such officer of the erring company can also be responsible for commission of such offence.

8. In the instant case it is apparent that there is no participation of the petitioner in her capacity as the Branch Manager of Tata Motors Finance and in such circumstances, issuance of process against the petitioner is palpably erroneous. In such circumstances, the proceeding impugned, so far as it relates to the present petitioner, is liable to be quashed forthwith by this Hon'ble Court.

9. Section 347 of the Indian Penal Code provides punishment for wrongful confinement to extort property or constrain to illegal act. The primary ingredients of the offence under Section 347 of the Indian Penal Code are (a) the accused confined a certain person; (b) such confinement was wrongful and (c) such confinement was for the purpose (a) extorting from the confined person or any other person interested in his property or valuable security or (b) constraining the doing of an illegal act by the confine or any person interested in him; or (c) giving any information facilitating the commission of any offence.

10. It is apparent that unless either of the above requirements are met through the act of the petitioner, the offence under Section 347 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be said to be made out. In the instant case, the allegations leveled in the complaint petition, as made by the complainant/opposite party no. 2, re