HDFC BANK LIMITED Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed, seeking to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.66 of 2015, pending on the file of the 1st respondent Police.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that there was an agreement dated 24.12.2013 between the defacto complainant/2nd respondent and the petitioner, vide which a loan was obtained for a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- for purchase of a car. Since the 2nd respondent did not repay the loan, after notice to him, the car was seized by the petitioner and kept in their custody. Therefore, the defacto complainant has made a complaint against the officials of the Bank and a case was also registered in Crime No.66 of 2015 for an offence under Section 379, IPC.

(3.) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.A.Mathai alias Babu & Anr. v. Kora Bibikutty & Anr., 1996 7 SCC 212, has held that in case of default to make payment of installments financier had a right to resume possession even if the hire purchase agreement does not contain a clause of resumption of possession for the reason that such a condition is to read in the agreement. In such an eventuality, it cannot be held that the financier had committed an offence of theft and that too, with the requisite mens rea and requisite dishonest intention. The assertions of rights and obligations accruing to the parties under the hire purchase agreement wipes out any dishonest pretence in that regard from which it cannot be inferred that financier had resumed the possession of the vehicle with a guilty intention.