SUNIL KUMAR KEJRIWAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the financer who advanced a sum of Rs.1 lac to the opposite party no.2 under an hire purchase agreement on 26.3.1999 for purchasing a vehicle which the opposite party no.2 purchased and under that agreement, the opposite party no.2 was supposed to make payment in 18 equal installments by 26.9.2000 but he made payment of Rs.39,000/- only till March, 2000 and then stopped making payment. Therefore, the petitioner by invoking one of the clauses of hire purchase agreement, repossessed the vehicle on 10.5.2000. Thereupon a complaint was lodged after six months of the repossession of the vehicle alleging therein that the petitioner has taken possession of the vehicle and has also taken away a sum of Rs.10,000/- from the vehicle. On such complaint, cognizance was taken on 24.3.2001 against the petitioner under Sections 379, 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. That order was challenged before this Court, vide Cr.M.P.No.499 of 2003 which was dismissed on 26.3.2004. Thereafter evidences were adduced before the charge and then cognizance of the offence was taken under Sections 406 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner, vide order dated 3.6.2006. That order was challenged before the revisional court which was dismissed, vide order dated 25.6.2008 on the ground that the petitioner had earlier unsuccessfully challenged the order taking cognizance before this Court. Those orders have been challenged in this application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in terms of clause of the hire purchase, the petitioner will remain owner till the entire payment is made by the hirer and since the hirer failed to make payment in terms of the hire purchase agreement, the petitioner by invoking one of the clauses of the hire purchase agreement repossessed the vehicle in question and thereby the petitioner cannot be said to have committed offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code but this aspect of the matter, was not considered either by the court below or even by the revisional court and hence, the order under which charge has been framed and also the order passed by the revisional court are fit to be set aside, in view of the decision rendered in a case of Charanjit Singh Chadha andothers vs. Sudhir Mehra, 2001 7 SCC 417 .