VINOD KUMAR DEWAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) M/s. Motor Sales Limited, Lucknow is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and is a dealer of TELCO and sells chassis of trucks manufactured by TELCO and give the truck chassis on hire purchase basis also. Nankau Prasad Singh opposite party no. 2 approached M/s. Motor Sales Limited and proposed to have a truck chassis on hire purchase basis The Motor Sales Limited accepted the proposal and a hire-purchase agreement was drawn up on 23-7-1982 (Annexure no. 2). The opposite party no. 2 agceed to purchase a chassis for a sum of Rs. 250377/- and paid Rs 57745/- as initial payment. The balance was to be paid in 17 instalments; the first of them was of Rs. 11354/- and the other 16 instalments were of Rs. 11330/-. The first instalment was payable on 24th September, 1982 and the other instalments were payable on 24th day of every succeeding calendar month. The chassis was registered with R.T.O., Allahabad and the number assigned to it was URS-9518. It appears that some of the instalments could not be paid by the due dates and ultimately a sum of Rs 23990/- towards instalments and some amount towards interest on account of non payment of the instalments by the due dates, was due from the opposite party no. 1, after the payment of the 15th instalment on 3-2-11-1984. According to the petitioner who is an Accountant of M/s. Motor Sales Limited contacted opposite party no. 2 in the month of November, 1985 to make necessary payments but the latter failed. The case of the petitioner is that on 20-11-1985 the opposite party no. 2 expressed his inability to pay the money and gave a writing Annexure No. 4 agreeing that the petitioner could take possession of the truck and accordingly the petitioner went to the village Annpara on 21-11-1985 and took possession over the truck with the consent of the opposite party no. 2. It has been further alleged that on 27-11-1985 or 28-11-1985 the opposite party no. 2 came to the office of the petitioner for settlement of the account and when it could not be done, the opposite party no. 2 lodged the first information report at Police Station Naka Hindola District Lucknow though the alleged incident took place within the circle of Police Station Pipri District Mirzapur, against the petitioner alleging that he alongwith some others forcibly took possession over the track while it was being taken to workshop Anri. On that report a case has been registered and is being investigated. The petitioner apprehending his arrest during investigation, filed the present petition under Section 482, CrPC alleging that no offence has been committed by him, the FIR may be quashed and the petitioner may not be arrested. Tt was also prayed that the truck may be given in the Supurdgi of the petitioner. On the petition the investigation and the arrest were stayed and the vehicle seized was given to the custody of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow.

(3.) IN Trilok Singh v Satya Deo Tripathi, 1979 AWC 465 SC the dispute between the parties related to the purchase of a truck under a hirepurchase agreement. The loan was payable in monthly instalments According to the hire purchase agreement on default of any one instalment the financier had the right to terminate hire purchase agreement even without notice and seize the truck. On default of the third instalment the truck was forcibly seized and removed by the financier. The hirer lodged an FIR against the financier but the police submitted a final report in that connection. The hirer then filed a complaint against the financier alleging that he committed certain offences while taking possession over the truck in question. After enquiry the Magistrate directed the issue of summons. The financier then moved an application under Section 482, CrPC alleging that he had not committed any offence. He prayed that the proceedings should be quashed. The High Court dismissed the application under Section 482 CrPC; the financier, therefore, filed an appeal in the Supreme Court. It was held that the proceedings initiated were clearly an abuse of the process of the Court and it was the case where no process ought to have been directed to be issued against the accused-appellants. The dispute raised by the complainant was purely of a civil nature and on the well settled principles of law it was a very suitable case where the criminal proceedings ought to have been quashed by the High Court in exercise of its inherent power. With these observations the appeal was allowed and criminal proceedings initiated on the basis of the complaint were quashed. The facts of the reported case are similar to those of the present one. The only difference is that in the reported case the matter was pending before the Magistrate who directed for the issue case summons. As against this in the present case the first information report has been lodged and the investigation is proceeding. These facts do not make an difference. The reason is that in the exercise of the powers under Section 48 CrPC the High Court can interfere even at the stage of investigation and it not necessary that proceedings should be pending before the court.