Back
1995 Supreme(Gau) 209
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
B.N.Singh Neelam, J.
Tarachand Bothra -Appellant
Versus
MD.Barek Ali -Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 86 of 1994
Decided On : 08-09-1995
P.Bora, N.Dhar, G.N.Sahewalla, B.Singha, A.K.Goswami, R.Begum
A dispute arising out of a Hire Purchase Agreement is a civil dispute and initiating criminal proceedings for the same amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL REVISION - SECTION 482 OF THE CRPC - COGNIZANCE OF OFFENCE - SECTIONS 379/403 OF THE IPC - HIRE PURCHASE AGREEMENT - DISPUTE OF CIVIL NATURE - ABUSE OF PROCESS OF COURT - QUASHING OF PROCEEDING - MAIN LEGAL POINT: A dispute arising out of a Hire Purchase Agreement is a civil dispute and initiating criminal proceedings for the same amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant filed a complaint case against the accused/petitioner, alleging that the accused had forcibly seized the truck financed by the complainant from M/s Bothra Motor Finance Ltd, of which the accused was a Director. The complainant claimed that he had paid the monthly installments for the repayment of the loan amount and was the absolute owner of the truck, and that the seizure of the truck by the financier was arbitrary and illegal.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the complainant had not provided any evidence to support his claim of having made full payment of the loan amount, and that the terms and conditions of the Hire Purchase Agreement clearly stated that the complainant was a bailee and not the absolute owner of the vehicle until the full loan amount was paid. The Court also noted that the financier had the right to terminate the agreement and take possession of the vehicle in case of non-payment of monthly installments.
Issues: 1. Whether the dispute arising out of the Hire Purchase Agreement was a civil dispute or a criminal offense? 2. Whether the initiation of criminal proceedings against the accused/petitioner amounted to an abuse of the process of the Court?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the dispute arising out of the Hire Purchase Agreement was a civil dispute and that the initiation of criminal proceedings against the accused/petitioner amounted to an abuse of the process of the Court. The Court relied on the following legal principles: 1. The power of quashing a criminal proceeding by the High Court under section 482 of the CrPC should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection. 2. The extra-ordinary or inherent power does not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its own whim or caprice. 3. The Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the criminal revision petition, set aside the impugned order dated 18.1.94 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, and quashed the proceeding initiated against the petitioner/accused.
2. Heard Mr. Sahewalfa, learned counsel for the petitioner Tarachand Bothra and Mr. N. Dhar, learned counsel for the complainant/opposite party.
3. The fact of the case in short, giving rise to this criminal revision petition so preferred under section 482 of the CrPC is that the complainant figuring here as opposite party filed a complaint case before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morigaon stating therein that the complainant had purchased a truck bearing registration No. AXA 9199 of Model 1988 being financed by M/s Bothra Motor Finance Ltd of which Tarachand Bothra, the petitioner is one of the Directors - concern being a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act engaged in the-business of hire purchase of motor vehicle etc. The further case of the complainant was that the monthly instalment for the repayment of loan amount was so paid by the complainant/opposite party yet the accused/petitioner seized the truck forcibly at Jagiroad on 25.12.03 which even after request could not be released. According to the complainant/opposite party the seizure of the truck by the said Bothra Brothers Finance Ltd was arbitrary and illegal. It was also the case of the complainant/opposite party that the owner book of the truck in question was in the name of the complainant and thus after the payment of the loan amount the complainant was the absolute owner of the truck in question and any sort of interference by the financier was not at all justified. At the foot of the complaint petition the description of the vehicle is given by indicating Chassis No. Engine No. etc. Against the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 18.1.94 taking cognizance under section 3797 403 of the IPC, the accused/petitioner being aggrieved, thus preferred this revision petition.
4. Mr. GN Sahewalla. learned counsel for the petitioner by pressing into service all the points so taken-in this criminal revision petition as good grounds for setting aside the impugned order dated 18.1.94 rather quashing the proceeding itself pointed out that there was no prima facie material before the learned Court below as to take cognizance of the offence by also issuing summons to the accused/petitioner rather the complaint petition would have been dismissed observing that dispute if any arising between the parties was purely of civil nature. It is further pointed out that the complainant was to pay the loan amount in equal instalments commencing from 30.11.88 as per terms and conditions of the agreement the financier was the owner of the vehicle and the complainant/opposite party was nothing but the bailee. In this connection conditions as referred to the clause of the agreement; one of the conditions being that the Hirer acknowledges that he holds the vehicle as a bailee of the owners and shall not have any proprietory right or interest as purchaser therein until he shall have exercised his option of purchase as herein before provided and shall have paid the whole amount due under the agreement or under any term thereof. On behalf of the petitioner certain documents are filed. Annexure 1 is the proposal form and Annexure II is the agreement with terms and conditions so entered therein. By referring to Annexure I, Mr. Sahewalla the learned counsel for the petitioner has further pointed out that the owner book of the vehicle in question with the details of vehicle was so prepared in the name of Barek Ali the details tallying with the details of the vehicle so given at the foot of the complaint p
