Back
2020 Supreme(MP) 783
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (GWALIOR BENCH)
G.S. Ahluwalia, J.
Jitendra Singh Dhillon - Appellant
Versus
State Of M.P. And Another - Respondent
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 36279 of 2020
Decided On : 01-10-2020
Sameer Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate, Abhishek Sharma, Advocate
The financier remains the owner of the vehicle and is entitled to repossess it, but repossession must be conducted in accordance with the law and cannot involve physical violence or criminal activities.
Headnote:
Seizure - Criminal Law - Sections 294, 341, 323 r/w Section 34 of IPC - Hire Purchase Act, 1972 - Charanjit Singh Chadha (2001) 7 SCC 417, Santosh Gaharwar (2012) 4 MPHT 208, Anup Sarmah (2013) 1 SCC 400, Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd. (2012) 1 SCC, ICICI Bank Ltd. (2007) 2 SCC 711, M/s Magma Fincorp Ltd. (2020) - The court discussed the nature of hire-purchase agreements, ownership rights, and repossession of goods by the financier, emphasizing that the financier remains the owner of the vehicle and is entitled to repossess it, but cannot use physical violence or engage in criminal activities for repossession.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant, an employee of a finance company, was charged under Sections 294, 341, 323 r/w Section 34 of IPC for his alleged involvement in the seizure of a vehicle due to default in loan payments by the complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the applicant was involved in the seizure of the vehicle without giving prior notice to the complainant and using physical violence, contrary to the guidelines issued by the RBI and judgments of the Supreme Court.
Issues: The issues revolved around the applicant's role in the seizure of the vehicle, the legality of the seizure, and the application of relevant sections of the IPC and the Hire Purchase Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the financier remains the owner of the vehicle and is entitled to repossess it, but cannot use physical violence or engage in criminal activities for repossession.
Final Decision: The court upheld the framing of charges under Sections 294, 341, 323 r/w Section 34 of IPC and dismissed the applicant's revision, finding no mistake in the lower court's orders.
JUDGMENT
G S Ahluwalia, J. - Heard finally through Video Conferencing.
2. This application under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed against the order dated 06/03/2020 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Mungawali, District Ashok Nagar in Criminal Revision No.35/2019 arising out of order dated 05/09/2017 passed by JMFC, Mungawali, District Ashok Nagar in Criminal Case No.349/ 2017 by which charges (Substance of accusation) under Sections 294, 341, 323 r/w Section 34 of IPC have been framed.
3. The necessary facts for disposal of present application in short are that the applicant claims to be an employee of Cholamandalam Finance Company Limitedr. The complainant Jameel Khan got an auto-rickshaw financed from the Company and when the complainant committed default and did not deposit the installments, then the vehicle was seized by the authorized agency of the Company. Accordingly, the complainant lodged a report against the applicant and other accused persons. The police after completing the investigation, filed the charge sheet and the Trial Court by order dated 5-9-2017, framed charges under Sections 294, 341, 323 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
4. Being aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court, the applicant filed a revision, which too has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 06/03/2020.
5. It is the case of the applicant that the applicant has no role to play in the seizure of the vehicle. The complainant had also filed a complaint before the Consumer Forum, Ashok Nagar in which a compromise was arrived at between the parties and it was decided that the complainant would deposit an amount of Rs.40,000/- out of the outstanding amount of more than Rs.50,000/-, however, the complainant has not respected the compromise order passed by the Consumer Forum.
6. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the complainant lodged a FIR on 04/03/2017 on the allegation that on 03/03/2017 at about 04:30 pm when he was coming on his auto-rickshaw No. MP-67-R0680, he was stopped by a white- coloured Travera Four Wheeler and Santosh Raghuvanshi, Jaspal Singh, applicant and one more person deboarded from the Travera Vehicle and on the pretext that the complainant has not deposited the installments, started abusing him. The co-accused Jaspal Singh twisted his hand and these persons took away the auto-rickshaw and an amount of Rs.1500/- which was kept in his pocket, had fallen down. It is submitted that before seizure of the vehicle due notice was given to the complainant as well as to the concerning Police Station. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that since the financier is the owner of the vehicle till all the installments are repaid, therefore, the financier is well within its rights to take the possession of the vehicle back. To buttress his contention, the counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Charanjit Singh Chadha and Others vs. Sudhir Mehra, (2001) 7 SCC 417 and the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Santosh Gaharwar vs. State and Others, (2012) 4 MPHT 208 .
7. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant.
8. So far as the contention of the applicant that he has no role to play in the seizure of the vehicle is concerned, it is suffice to mention here that he has been specifically named in the FIR. It is specifically mentioned that the applicant was also sitting in the Travera Vehicle and deboarded from the same and forcibly seized the vehicle. The applicant has filed a copy of the intimation dated 03/03/2017 which was given to the Inspector of Police Station, Ashok Nagar, thereby informing that the auto-rickshaw shall be seized from the complainant. The applicant has also filed a paper payment requisition in favour of Sekhon Enterprises for seizure of auto-rickshaw from the complainant and a receipt dated 03/03/2017 issued by the Sekhon Enterprises for seizure of the vehicle has also been placed on record. The seizure report as well as t
