S. Vaidyanathan, J.

1. This petition has been filed, seeking to quash the First Information Report in Crime No. 66 of 2015, pending on the file of the 1st respondent Police.

2. The case of the petitioner is that there was an agreement dated 24.12.2013 between the defacto complainant/2nd respondent and the petitioner, vide which a loan was obtained for a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- for purchase of a car. Since the 2nd respondent did not repay the loan, after notice to him, the car was seized by the petitioner and kept in their custody. Therefore, the defato complainant has made a complaint against the officials of the Bank and a case was also registered in Crime No. 66 of 2015 for an offence under Section 379 IPC.

2.1. It is submitted that the respondent police also send an undated communication to the petitioner Bank, asking them to surrender the vehicle, as the same is required for investigation as well as for production before the Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court, seeking to quash the FIR, registered in Crime No. 66 of 2015. Even though notice has been served on the 2nd respondent, no one entered appearance for him.

3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.A. Mathai alias Babu & Anr. v. Kora Bibikutty & Anr., reported in (1996) 7 SCC 212, has held that in case of default to make payment of installments financier had a right to resume possession even if the hire purchase agreement does not contain a clause of resumption of possession for the reason that such a condition is to read in the agreement, In such an eventuality, it cannot be held that the financier had committed an offence of theft and that too, with the requisite mens rea and requisite dishonest intention. The assertions of rights and obligations accruing to the parties under the hire purchase agreement wipes out any dishonest pretence in that regard from which it cannot be inferred that financier had resumed the possession of the vehicle with a guilty intention.

4. In yet another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Charanjit Singh Chadha & Ors. v. Sudhir Mehra, reported in (2001) 7 SCC 417, it has been observed that recovery of possession of the vehicle by financier-owner as per the terms of the hire purchase agreement, does not amount to a criminal offence. Such an agreement is an executory contract of sale conferring no right in rem on the hirer until the transfer of the property to him has been fulfilled and in case the default is committed by the hirer and possession of the vehicle is resumed by the financier, it does not constitute any offence for the reason that such a case/dispute is required to be resolved on the basis of terms incorporated in the agreement.

5. The decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments referred to above, have been reiterated by the Apex Court in the recent judgment in Anup Sarmah v. Bhola Nath Sharma & Others, wherein it has been held thus:

"8. In view of the above, the law can be summarised that in an agreement of hire purchase, the purchaser remains merely a trustee/bailee on behalf of the financier/financial institution and ownership remains with the latter. Thus, in case vehicle is seized by the financier, no criminal action can be taken against him as he is repossessing the goods owned by him."

6. From the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court, it is vividly clear that the purchaser remains merely a trustee/bailee on behalf of the financier/financial institution and the ownership remains with the latter/financial institution.

7. In the case on hand, no criminal action could be taken against the petitioner herein, as the petitioner has repossessed the vehicle for default committed by the defacto complainant in respect of the loan obtained by him. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the FIR registered in Crime No. 66 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police is liable to be set aside.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the First Inform