HDFC BANK LTD Vs. STATE OF RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these petitions have been filed by HDFC Bank Ltd. on same facts and for quashing different FIRs, hence are decided by a common order. The contention of the present petitioner in the petitions is that petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act and offering financial services to its customers. In the present cases, different amounts have been advanced to the respondents, but respondents has not paid the money and defaults are ranging from installments 6 to 21. The present petitioner has right to resume the possession of the vehicles in view of the term of the hire purchase agreement and after due intimation to the concerned police stations, vehicles have been repossessed as the respondents have neither produced vehicles for inspection nor paid the monthly installment. In the backdrop of these facts, impugned FIRs have been lodged against the present petitioner for the offence under Section 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and even under Section 379 and 392 IPC on the ground that they have dishonestly taken the possession of the vehicles whereas respondents are the defaulters and repossession has been rightly taken by the present petitioner, no offence has been committed by them hence the FIR be quashed.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the impugned FIRs.

(3.) The contention of the present petitioner is that under the hire purchase-agreement, they have repossessed the vehicles and no criminal proceedings could be initiated for criminal breach of trust cheating or even for theft. Respondents are defaulters in payment and after intimation to the respondents and to the concerned police stations, vehicles have been repossessed and it is to put pressure on the petitioner, these FIRs have been lodged and to fortify his contention, reliance has been placed on Charanjit Singh Chadha & Ors. vs. Sudhir Mehra, 2001 AIR(SC) 3721wherein it has been held: