GOBARDHAN CHANDHAK Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When would a financier's act of re-possession of a vehicle, which is covered by a hire-purchase agreement, not amount to an offence of theft? This is the cardinal issue, which these this application made under Section 482 CrPC has raised. Yet another important question, which arises for consideration, is: When the financier or his agent commits any 'offence', while in the act of repossessing the vehicle, whether commission of such an 'offence' would make the financier and/or his agent, as the case may be, liable for prosecution under the appropriate penal provisions With the help of this Criminal Petition, made under Section 482 CrPC, the petitioner, who is one of the accused in Complaint Case No. 242/2007, has sought to get set aside and quashed the order, dated 04.07.2007, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonitpur, in CR Case No. 242 of 2007, taking cognizance of offence, under Sections 379 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC, and directing issuance of process against the accused No. 1 (i.e., the present petitioner) under Section 379/34 IPC and also process against the accused No. 2 (who is not petitioner in the present case) under Sections 379/506/34 IPC.

(2.) I have heard Mr. D. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. None has appeared on behalf of the complainant-opposite party. However, I have heard Mr. Z. Kamar, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam.

(3.) While considering the present application, made under Section 482 CrPC, it needs to be noted that the present petitioner, who is one of the accused in the said complaint case, has put to challenge the order, dated 04.07.2007, so far as the same concerns the present petitioner.