M SRINIVASAN Vs. AMARJEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners states that as per the hire purchase agreement, petitioners were within their right to seize the vehicle. He has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Charanjit Singh Chadha and others v. Sudhir Mehra, (2001) 7 Supreme Court Cases 417 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, where the owner recovers the possession of the goods as per the terms of the hire purchase agreement, it does not amount to a criminal offence. Such an agreement is an executory contract of sale, conferring no right in rem on the hirer, until the conditions for transfer of the property to him have been fulfilled. The Judgment (supra) squarely covers the case in hand. CRIMINAL MISC.NO.56269-M OF 2004 -2- LEARNED counsel for the respondent did not have any argument, nor was he in a position to show any authority, which was contrary to judgment (supra). Complaint and the summoning order (Annexures P6 and P7) are quashed and all consequential proceedings are also set aside. With the above direction, petition is disposed of.