RAJIV GUPTA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a Director of the Motor & General Finance Limited, having its registered office at 17-B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. The business of the Company pertains to dealing in hire purchase/leasing and financing of chassis of motor vehicles, cars, machinery and heavy equipment. REspondent No. 2 Jai Pal Singh alongwith his father Zile Singh and respondent No. 3 Sunehra Singh approached the petitioner's company on 10th April, 1990 for seeking finance for the purpose of purchase of a truck. A Hire Purchase Agreement Annexure 5 was duly executed by respondent No. 2 and the same was also signed by respondent No. 3 as a guarantor. In the Hire Purchase Agreement, it was agreed between the parties that the total sum advanced would be Rs. 4,31,798/- which would include the value of the chassis, hire purchase charges and insurance for the 2nd and third years. At the time of the execution or the agreement, respondent No. 2 also deposited a sum of Rs. 97,298/- towards the initial payment in addition to a sum of Rs. 251/- as documentation charges etc. and as per Schedule B of the agreement, the balance sum of Rs. 3,34,500/- was to be remitted to the Company in 35 monthly instalments. The vehicle was duly registered at Jind and allotted Registration No. HR 31/1358. It appears that respondent No. 2 paid instalments amounting to Rs. 67,200/- and, thereafter defaulted leaving a balance of Rs. 2,76,000/- towards the instalments that were due and Rs. 1,10,710/- towards compensation charges for their late payment. As respondent No. 2 committed a series of defaults in the repayment of the purchase money, the Company issued a notice to him on 6th April, 1992 through respondent No. 3 Sunehra Singh calling upon him to pay the balance amount. The case of respondent No. 2 is that on receipt of the notice, he paid a sum of Rs. 1,63,200/- to respondent No. 3 to be paid into the accounts of the Company in discharge of his total liability on account of the hire purchase. The company, however, denied having received any money, with the result that on 21st January, 1993, the Inspector of the Company seized the vehicle in question in terms of Condition 4 of the agreement which gave the Company the right to do so in case of default. This action of the Company led to the filing of the complaint Annexure 7 dated 28th March, 1993 annexed with this petition. The Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal, vide his order dated 14th July, 1993, summoned the petitioner as an accused for an offence under Section 372 of the I.P.C. (should be read as 382 thereof). Both the complaint as also the summoning order have been impugned in this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Notice was issued in this case and the reply has also been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their help.