HARIHARAN Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed by the applicants, who arc respectively Branch Manager and Assistant Manager of Sundaram Finance Co. Ltd., Bhopal, for quashing the first information report registered by Police Station Habibganj, District Bhopal, at Crime No. 63/06 under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) IN brief, the prosecution case is that on 23.2.2006 Smt. Ruchi Dixit (complainant) lodged a report with the police that on 22.2.2006 a about 8:30 p.m. when she had gone to the house of her sister Shobha, who lives in front of the Sarojini Naidu School situated at Shivaji Nagar, she had parked her Maruti -800 car having Registration No. MP -04 -HA/6190 in front of the school. A red coloured purse containing Rs.85,000/ - cash, which she had to pay to her workers, one gold necklace, two bank ATM cards, keys of house and papers relating to income -tax and Corporation were also kept in the car. When she came out of the house, her car was not there. Some unknown thief had stolen the car. On the basis of the above report police registered an offence under section 379 of the IPC against ubnknown person.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that a loan agreement was entered into between Smt. Ruchi Dixit and Sundaram Finance Co. Ltd. for purchasing a new Maruti -800 car for an amount of Rs. 2.03,670/ -to be payable in 47 monthly installments. According to him, the last installment was to be paid on 10.9.2006. Husband of the complainant Mr.Vijay Shankar Dixit stood guarantor under the loan agreement. By the finance made by the Company the said Maruti -800 car was purchased. After making some payment the complainant started making default in payment of installments despite several demands and reminders by the Company. Learned counsel submtited that since the complainant had entered into the agreement of hire purchase with the Company, it was agreed upon that the creditor Company, will have a right to terminate the agreement and will be entitled to retake and recover the possession of the vehicle in case of default. Since the complainant became habitual defaulter in payment of the loan and repeatedly violated the terms and conditions of the agreement, the Finance Company exercising its right to seize and repossess the vehicle cannot be said to be a criminal act and, in fact, the dispute is of civil nature, therefore, the first information report recorded under section 379 of IPC deserves to be quashed.