CHARANJIT SINGH CHADHA Vs. SUDHIR MEHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The appellants are running a non-banking financial institution, by name, Messrs Deluxe Leasing Pvt. Ltd. The respondent, Sudhir Mehra, partner of a partnership firm, entered into a hire purchase agreement with the appellants on 3-5-1994 whereunder a motor vehicle was handed over to the respondent. The total consideration agreed to be paid by the respondent was Rs. 3,02,884/- and the respondent made an initial payment of Rs. 69,308/- and the balance amount was to be paid in 36 monthly instalments of Rs. 8,400/- each starting from 3-6-1997. According to respondent, he had been paying the instalments regularly. The respondent filed a criminal complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar on 3-12-1998 alleging that the motor vehicle in question had developed some trouble and it was entrusted to a motor mechanic on 14-9-1996 for carrying out repairs and that in the night of 16-9-1996 the appellants forcibly took away the vehicle from the motor mechanic and thus committed offences under Section 406/420/120-B, IPC. Pursuant to the complaint, the Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and issued summons to the appellants. Appellants filed a petition under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana to quash the complaint proceedings. In the petition, it was alleged by the appellants that respondent had committed default in paying the instalments and that as on 1-9-1996 an amount of Rs. 1,34,887/- was outstanding against the respondent and therefore the appellants were constrained to terminate the hire purchase agreement and that the respondent surrendered the motor vehicle to the appellants. The learned single Judge of the High Court declined to quash the proceedings and held that the allegations in the complaint were capable of making out offences punishable especially under Section 379, IPC and, therefore, the petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants have filed the instant appeal.

(3.) We heard learned counsel on either side. The counsel for the appellants contended that the allegations made in the complaint would not make out an offence punishable under law and that the appellants had exercised their right under the hire purchase agreement. It was argued that even if it is proved that the vehicle was forcibly taken away from the custody of the respondent, that may not be an offence punishable under law as the hire purchase agreement clearly provided for re-possession of the vehicle by the owner namely, the appellants, in the event of default by the respondent.