In hire purchase agreements, the financier retains ownership, and repossession does not constitute a criminal act, preventing abuse of legal process.

JUDGMENT :

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent State and the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2.

2. The prayer in the petition is made for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 20th May, 2015 arising out of Complaint Case No.1609 of 2013 consequent to TR. No. 849 of 2015 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.

3. The complaint case was filed alleging therein that the complainant/O.P. No.2 purchased TATA Ace FX vehicle from Budhia Agencies, Pvt. Ltd., Tata Motors Ltd., Ranchi on 26.05.2010 in total consideration amount of Rs.2,94,241/-.

It was alleged that said vehicle was purchased on finance provided by TATA Motors Finance Ltd. under contract No.5000553589 and EMI was fixed to Rs.7,300/-

The registration of vehicle was processed by the Financer because the vehicle was purchased in Hire Purchase agreement and the vehicle was registered on 10.08.2010 and it was intimated by financer to complainant/O.P. No.2 that registration No. of vehicle is JH-01-AF-8701.

It was also alleged that the said vehicle was handed over to the Complainant/O.P. No.2 by the financer on the next day of the registration

The Complainant/O.P. No.2 got the vehicle insured from ICICI Lombard and also got the road permit and started plying the vehicle in public way.

It was further alleged that the Complainant/O.P. No.2 started paying Rs.7300/- per month to TATA Motors Finance Ltd. from August 2010 and paid up to date payment till May, 2013.

The Complainant/O.P. No.2 never misused the privilege provided under the contract of Agreement and paid the fixed amount regularly.

It was also alleged in the complaint petition that on 11.06.2013 at about 9:00 AM the driver of complainant Sri Ram Mahto had parked the vehicle in Bharat Garage BIT Ranchi which was seized by financier musclemen and took the said vehicle in their own possession.

It was further alleged that the Complainant/O.P. No.2 vehicle was seized by the financier’s hired persons without any reason and they also picked Rs.5000/- from the pocket of the driver.

It was alleged that if the financier had any grievance he should have given prior notice of their intention to do so.

The financier has illegally seized the vehicle of the Complainant/O.P. No.2 and when the Complainant/O.P. No.2 met the accused persons they did not release the vehicle and threatened to face dire consequences.

For that the Complainant/O.P. No.2 is losing Rs.1500/- per day due to seizure of the vehicle.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an ex-employee of TATA Motors Finance Ltd. and was posted as “Branch Manager Collection” and he has not committed any offence whatsoever under the law and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. He submits that the complainant in order to change the nature of the dispute which is out rightly civil in nature arising out of “Loan-cum-Hypothecation-cum-guarantee Agreement” dated 26.05.2010 for default in repayment of EMIs by the petitioner has concocted a false story implicating the petitioner into the instant criminal case just to pressurize the TATA Motors Finance Co. Ltd. He submits that the complainant has taken the loan from the TATA Motors Finance Co. Ltd. for purchase of the vehicle thereafter a loan agreement was entered into between the parties on 26.05.2010 for purchase of vehicle by the complainant and a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was disbursed by TATA Motors Finance Ltd. being the Financer to the complainant which was required to be repaid in 45 EMIs. and first installment was fixed for Rs.7320/- and the rest of 44 installments @ Rs.7300/-. He submits that after payment of certain installments, the opposite party No.2 has not paid the EMIs. and in view of the Clause 18 of the loan agreement the said vehicle, after following the due process of law, the vehicle was re-possessed by the TATA Motors Finance Ltd. He subm