Back
2020 Supreme(MP) 1106
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
G.S. Ahluwalia, J.
Jitendra Singh Dhillon v. State of M. P. & Another
Miscellaneous Criminal Case 36279 of 2020 (Gwalior): against the order dated 6.3.2020 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Mungaoli, District Ashok Nagar in Criminal Revision No.35/2019; Decided on 1.10.2020
Headnote:
Sameer Kumar Shrivastava for applicant; Abhishek Sharma, Panel Lawyer, for respondent/State.
Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 294, 341 and 323 r/w S. 34 -- Criminal P. C., 1973 -- S. 482 -- framing of charge -- accused recovery agent of financer -- took back possession of vehicle under hire purchase agreement -- although financer continues to remain owner of vehicle and is entitled to take back possession (if provided in hire purchase agreement), but cannot take recourse to physical violence by engaging gangsters, goons and musclemen as so-called recovery agents -- re-possession taken not only through recovery agent by using physical violence, but no prior notice also given -- financer acted contrary to guidelines issued by RBI as well as judgments passed by Supreme Court – no mistake in framing charge u/ss. 294, 341 and 323/24 of IPC. (2001) 7 SCC 417, (2013) 1 SCC 400, (2012) 1 SCC 1, (2007) 2 SCC 711 and C. A. No. 5622 of 2019 decided on 1.10.2020 followed. 2012 (4) MPHT 208 referred to. [Paras 15 & 19
naM lafgrk] 1860 &&/kkjk 294] 341 rFkk 323 lgifBr/kkjk 34 && naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 &&/kkjk 482 && vkjksi dh fojpuk && vfHk;qDr foÙknkrk dk olwyh vfHkdrkZ && vc Ø; djkj ds v/khu ;ku dk dCtk okil fy;k && ;|fi foÙknkrk ;ku dk Lokeh cuk jgrk gS rFkk dCtk okil ysus dk gdnkj gS ¼;fn vc Ø; djkj esa micaf/kr gks½] rFkkfi vkrrkf;;ksa] HkkM+s ds cnek'kksa vkSj ckgqcfy;ksa dks rFkkdfFkr olwyh vfHkdrkZvksa ds :i esa fu;ksftr dj 'kkjhfjd fgalk dk vkJ; ugha ys ldrk && u dsoy olwyh vfHkdrkZ ds ekè;e ls 'kkjhfjd fgalk dk vkJ; ugha ys ldrk && u dsoy olwyh vfHkdrkZ ds ek/;e ls 'kkjhfjd fgalk dk mi;ksx dj dCtk okil fy;k x;k] cfYd iwoZ lwpuk Hkh ugha nh xbZ && foÙknkrk us Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad }kjk tkjh fn'kk&funsZ'kksa ds lkFk gh mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ;ksa ds izfrdwy dk;Z fd;k && naM lafgrk dh/kkjk 294] 341 rFkk 323@24 ds v/khu vkjksi fojfpr fd, tkus esa dksbZ Hkwy ughaA ¼2001½7 ,l lh lh 417] ¼2013½1 ,l lh lh 400] ¼2012½1 ,l lh lh 1] ¼2007½2 ,l lh lh 711 rFkk flfoy vihy Ø- 5622 lu~ 2019 fu.khZr fnukad 1-10-2020 vuqlfjrA 2012 ¼2½ ,e ih ,p Vh 208 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 15 ,oa 19
ORDER
1. Heard finally through video conferencing.
2. This application under section 482 of CrPC has been filed against the order dated 6.3.2020 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Mungawali, District Ashok Nagar in Criminal Revision No. 35/2019 arising out of order dated 5.9.2017 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 Limited. The complainant Jameel Khan got an autorickshaw 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 6.3.2020.
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 4.3.2017 on the allegation that on 3.3.2017 at about 4:30 pm, when he was coming on his autorickshaw No. MP67R0680, he was stopped by a white-coloured Tavera four-wheeler and Santosh Raghuvanshi, Jaspal Singh, applicant and one more person deboarded from the Tavera 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 autorickshaw and an amount of Rs. 1,500/- 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 v. Sudhir Mehra reported in (2001) 7 SCC 417 and the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Santosh Gaharwar v. State and Others reported in 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 Tavera vehicle and deboarded from the same and forcibly seized the vehicle. The applicant has filed a copy of the intimation dated 3.3.2017 which was given to the Inspector of Police Station, Ashok Nagar, thereby informing that the autorickshaw shall be seized from the complainant. The applicant has also filed a paper payment requisition in favour of Sekhon Enterprises for seizure of autorick shaw from the complainant, and a receipt dated 3.3.2017 issued by the Sekhon Enterprises for seizure of the vehicle has also been placed on record. The seizure report as well as the inventory of
