KUMUD KALITA Vs. LALIT SARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein took, on loan, a car on the ba sis of a hire-purchase agreement, which had been entered into by him with M/s. Bikash Finance Corporation. In terms of the said hire-purchase agreement. the amount, advanced by the financier, was to be repaid in 42 monthly instalments with interest as had been agreed upon by the parties concerned. This hire-purchase agreement stipulated that the hirer would not sell, assign. transfer, mortgage, pledge, hypothecate. let or otherwise deal with or part with the possession of the said motor vehicle or create any interest of any third party therein until the time all the payments, due to the financier, were made. Under this hire-purchase agreement, it was also stipulated by the parties that until payment of the entire dues to the financier, the financier, who was the owner of the vehicle, would remain the owner of the vehicle and that the vehicle would be transferred to the petitioner, when the financier's dues were cleared. The hire-purchase agreement vested in the financier the right to repossess the vehicle if the hirer committed default in making payment of his dues. When the petitioner sold the said vehicle to a third party, the financier, on 9.1.2006, lodged an F.I.R. with Nalbari Police Station alleging, inter alia that the hirer (i.e. the petitioner herein) had not made payment of his dues to the financier and that the hirer had threatened to kill the representative of the financier, when the said representative had one to the hirer seeking payment of their dues. It was also alleged in the F .I. R. that the hirer had sold the vehicle to one Tirtha Sharma of Chaygaon village and given possession of the said vehicle to the said Tirtha Sharma. Based on this F.I.R., Nalbari Police Station Case No. 297/2006 under sections 406/420. I.P.C. was registered against the petitioner. During investigation, police seized the said vehicle.

(2.) Though the petitioner applied for zimma of the vehicle, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalbari, passed an order, on 12.2.2007, rejectin the petitioner's prayer for zimma and directed that the vehicle be handed over to the financier after verification of all necessary documents and on execution of a bond of one lakh rupee. This order came to be challenged by the petitioner in criminal revision No. 08/2007. Though the learned Sessions Jude, Nalbari, admitted the revision and, initially, stayed the operation of the order, dated 12.2.2007, aforementioned, the revision was, eventually, dismissed on 19.3.2007. The basis for this dismissal was that the documents, produced in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, indicated that the petitioner had purchased the car on the basis of a hire-purchase agreement whereunder the financier had the right to repossess the vehicle and in the face of the terms and conditions of the hire-purchase agreement, the order, dated 12.2.2007. passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was correct and needed no interference. The petitioner is, now, before this Court with this application, made under section 482, Code Criminal Procedure read with Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to get the F.I.R. quashed and also for the purpose of receiving the zimma of the said vehicle.

(3.) Heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned Counsel for the accused-petitioner, and Mr. K. Munir, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.