GEORGE V A Vs. ABRAHAM AUGUSTINE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the accused in C.C. No: 178/2005 of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sultanbathery, to quash the proceedings in that case. The 1st petitioner is the President and Managing Director of a Finance Company of which petitioners 2 and 5 are the employees. An agreement was entered into between the 1st respondent (hereinafter referred to as respondent) and the Petitioner Company. Rs.4,80,000/- was advanced to the respondent for the purchase of a mini lorry, on 6.11.2000. The amount so advanced was to be repaid in 36 installments of Rs. 18,000/-. The mini lorry was taken delivery by the respondent. A few installments were stated to have been paid by the respondent. As the respondent committed default in paying the installments the mini lorry was repossessed by the petitioner Company on 6.5.2002. A complaint was filed by him before the learned Magistrate which was forwarded to the police for investigation. The police, after conducting investigation referred the case as false. Then the respondent filed a protest complaint. After conducting inquiry, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the case against the petitioner for offences under sections 143, 148, 394, 427 and 506(ii") r/w 149 of I.P.C.

(2.) The Petitioners contend that as per the hire purchase agreement, the petitioner Company was authorized and empowered to repossess the vehicle on failure to pay the installments. According to the petitioners due intimation was given to the respondents regarding the intended seizure of the vehicle. Immediately after the seizure also the police was informed and as such it cannot be said that it was a dishonest removal of the mini lorry. The petitioners also contend that they had not used force or threatened the respondent while taking possession of the vehicle. Therefore, the petitioners contend that the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate is bad and is thus liable to be quashed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Bhagya Products v. Commissioner of Police,2003 2 KerLT 1054 where some guidelines were issued by that Court. In the aforesaid decision it was held: