Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 3730
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Arvind Singh Sangwan, J.
K. Soundarrajan @ Rajan Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Kulwant Singh - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous (M) No. 37982 of 2015
Decided On : 18-08-2018
A.S. Virk, Adv.
The legality of repossession under a hire purchase agreement and the absence of vicarious liability for the petitioner were the central legal points established in the judgment.
Headnote:
IPC - Criminal Complaint - Section 382, Section 34 IPC - The court discussed the legal provisions related to repossession of a vehicle under a hire purchase agreement, vicarious liability, and the procedure to be followed when there is a complaint case and police investigation in respect of the same offence. The court highlighted key legal principles from various judgments to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a bank employee, was facing trial under Section 382 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the repossession of a vehicle from a defaulter. The complainant alleged that the petitioner and three bank employees forcibly took money from the vehicle during repossession.
Finding of the Court:
The court found merit in the petition based on several reasons: the repossession was on behalf of the bank, the complainant's malafide actions, lack of direct allegations against the petitioner, and no prima facie offence under Section 406 IPC.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the repossession, vicarious liability of the petitioner, and the complainant's actions in filing the criminal complaint.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by legal principles related to repossession under a hire purchase agreement, vicarious liability, and the procedure to be followed when there is a complaint case and police investigation in respect of the same offence.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the criminal complaint and summoning order were quashed.
JUDGMENT
Arvind Singh Sangwan, J. - Prayer in this petition is for quashing of criminal complaint No.107-I of 12.04.2008 titled as Kulwant Singh Vs. Rajan Kumar and Others (Annexure P-17) and the summoning order dated 12.06.2014 (Annexure P-23), vide which the petitioner was summoned to face the trial under Section 382 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') read with Section 34 IPC.
2. It may be worth noticing here that the present petition was filed in the year 2015 and personal appearance of the petitioner was exempted vide order dated 05.11.2015 and thereafter, on 09.08.2017, the trial Court was directed to adjourn the case beyond the date fixed by this Court. The respondent has taken number of dates for filing written statement, however, till date, no reply has been filed. None appeared on the last date of hearing and even today, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, at the relevant time, was posted as Branch Head of IndusInd Bank Limited (hereinafter referred as 'Bank'), at Bathinda. The petitioner resigned from the Bank in the year 2013 and thereafter, he rejoined the Bank w.e.f. 05.05.2014. The respondentcomplainant (hereinafter referred as 'complainant') namely Kulwant Singh availed loan of Rs. 5.00 lacs, being the 100% invoice value of Ashoka Leyland Stag ALPSV (Mini Bus) vide agreement No.JH001063H dated 14.11.2003, from Ashoka Leyland Finance Limited (now undertaken by the Bank). The loan amount was to be repaid in 34 monthly installments, starting from 14.12.2003 to 14.09.2006. The aforesaid vehicle (mini bus) was registered vide registration No.PB-05J-9543. Since the complainant failed to repay monthly installments, the Bank issued a notice for clearing the amount on 10.06.2005 and thereafter, the Bank issued notice of repossession, after giving due intimation to Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur as well as SHO, Police Station Sadar Ferozepur (Annexures P-5 & P-6). The Bank, after repossessing the vehicle on 12.10.2006, again issued notices to the complainant to make payment of the defaulted amount (Annexures P-10 & P-11), however, the complainant failed to do so and rather he filed the complaint before the Illaqa Magistrate, Ferozepur under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and on the direction issued by the ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur, an FIR No.319 dated 17.11.2006 under Sections 382, 506, 323, 34 IPC was registered at Police Station Sadar Ferozepur against the petitioner and three other persons namely Bohar Singh, Ranjit Singh and Dimpy.
4. During investigation of the aforesaid FIR, the petitioner moved an application (Annexure P-13) on 24.11.2006, highlighting the details of the notices issued by the Bank before repossessing the vehicle and even thereafter, the notices issued for payment of the defaulted amount given to the complainant.
5. The petitioner was granted anticipatory bail during pendency of the aforesaid FIR. Later on, the police prepared a cancellation report in the said FIR and submitted in the office of Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur, however, the same was not presented before the Illaqa Magistrate and is still pending. In the meantime, during the investigation, the police had taken possession of the vehicle from the Bank and the complainant, by moving an application before the concerned Illaqa Magistrate, had taken custody of the vehicle on superdari on 09.01.2007 and still is in possession of same and no further installment is paid.
6. Thereafter, the complainant has filed the impugned complaint (Annexure P-17) on 12.04.2008 with the allegations that the petitioner and aforesaid three employees of the Bank, while repossessing the vehicle (mini bus) on 12.10.2006, have forcibly taken Rs. 50,000/- from the dashboard of the vehicle. In the preliminary evidence, the complainant himself appeared as CW1 and deposed on the lines of version given in the complaint. The trial Court vide impugned summoning o
