S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

( 1 ) IN this petition under Article 226 of the- Constitution, appropriate writ for quashing of a First Information Report alleging commission of offences under Sections 392, 452 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code have been sought.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is an Area Officer with M/s. Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. (hereafter called "the Company" ). He avers that one Sh. Ram Gopal Verma (hereafter called "borrower") approached the company for the financing of a two-wheeler (Hero Honda Splendour) motorcycle. The proposal was accepted; consequently a Hire-purchase Agreement was entered into. The vehicle was purchased and the monthly instalment payable under the arrangement was Rs. 1831/ -. The petitioner avers that the entire amount financed by the company was repayable in 24 equated monthly instalments, for which the borrower issued post-dated cheques.

( 3 ) IT has been further averred that the borrower did not make timely payments leading to an outstanding amount of Rs. 6517/- (Rs. six thousand five hundred seventeen only ). Under the circumstances, in terms of the hire- purchase agreement, the petitioner, on behalf of the company, along with certain other persons took possession of the vehicle on 16. 09. 2003 from the borrower.

( 4 ) IT is averred that the borrower (through his son, the complainant) complained to the police about the incident and levelled allegations about use of force and also holding out of criminal intimidation/threats to himself and the said complainant. The initial complaint was not registered as First information Report (FIR) but after directions of the Additional Sessions Judge in proceedings under Section 156 (3), the FIR was registered in respect of the concerned offences, on 6. 11. 2003. The investigation into the incident is in progress. The petitioner has approached for quashing of the First Information report and all further proceedings.

( 5 ) MR. Jatan Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner has made a two-fold submission. Firstly, he submits that the First Information Report read as a whole and even if taken to be true, does not disclose any cognizable offence. He relies on the following extracts of the FIR :

" (C) That the father of the complainant regularly paid the instalments and almost Rs. 53120/- was already paid to the accused, (d) That in the morning of 16. 9. 2003 at 9. 00 a. m. the complainant was clearing the motor cycle at his residence DL-7s-W-5170. (e) That in the morning of 16. 9. 2003 at 9. 00 a. m. four muscle men came together and push to the complainant and snatched the key from the complainant take away the motor cycle, (f) That the muscle-men abusing the complainant and his family members and they told that they came by the instructions of the Area Manager Shri Rajeev. (g)That they also threatened to the complainant that in case he shall initiate any action either in the Court or the police, he shall be implicated in the false criminal cases and shall be sent behind bar. (4) That after listening the incidents, the mother of the complainant seriously ill and was admitted in Railway Central Hospital, New delhi"it is submitted by Counsel on behalf of the petitioner that the basis of the allegations against the petitioner are vague and lacking in any particulars; they do not make out any, much less the offences punishable under Sections 392, 406 and 542, IPC.

( 6 ) THE second submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that as the ownership of the vehicle was with the company it was open to the latter to repossess the same in the event of any default in the conditions contained in the Hire-Purchase Agreement. Mr. Jatan Singh relied upon the decision of the supreme Court reported as Charanjeet Singh Chadha v. Sudhir Mehra. Particular reliance is placed upon the following observations of the Supreme Court:

"the hire-purchase agreement in law is an executory contract of sale and confers no right in rem on hirer until the conditions for t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document