LexANUP SARMAH versus BHOLA NATH SHARMA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B (2012] 11 S.C.R. 360 ANUP SARMAH v. BHOLA NATH SHARMA AND ORS. (Special Leave Petition (Crl.} No.8907 of 2009) OCTOBER 30, 2012 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] Hire-Purchase - Vehicle purchased by petitioner on hire- C purchase basis - .Complaint filed by petitioner that the respondents-financier had forcibly taken the custody of the said vehicle - Criminal proceedings initiated against the respondents before the Judicial Magistrate - Quashed by High Court in criminal revision - Justification - Held: In an o agreement of hire purchase, the purchaser remains merely a trustee/bailee on behalf of the financier/financial institution and ownership remains with the latter - Thus, in case the vehicle is seized by the financier, no criminal action can be taken against him as he is re-possessing the goods E owned by him. Trilok Singh & Ors. v. Satya Deo Tripathi AIR 1979 SC 850: 1979 (4) SCC 396; K.A. Mathai alias Babu & Anr. v. Kora Bibbikutty & Anr. (1996) 7 SCC 212 and Charanjit Singh Chadha & Ors. v. Sudhir Mehra (2001) 7 SCC 417 F - relied on. Mis. Damodar Valley Corporation v. The State of Bihar AIR 1961 SC 440: 1961 SCR 522; Instalment Supply (Private) Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. AIR 1962 SC G 53: 1962 SCR 644; K.L. Johar & Co. v. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Coimbtore Ill AIR 1965 SC 1082: 1965 SCR 112 and Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. State of Kera/a & Anr. AIR 1966 SC 1178: 1966 SCR 828 - referred to. 360 ANUP SARMAH v. BHOLA NATH SHARMA AND 361 ORS. Case Law Reference: A 1979 (4) sec 396 relied on Para 5 (1996) 1 sec 212 relied on Para 6 2001) 1 sec 417 relied on Para 7 B 1961 SCR 522 referred to Para 7 1962 SCR 644 referred to Para 7 1965 SCR 112 referred to Para 7 c 1966 SCR 828 ' referred to Para 7 I CRIMINAL APPELf-ATE JURISDICTION: Spef;ial Leave (Crl) No. 8907 of 2009 ' From the Judgment & Order dated 22.6.~009 of the High D Court of Guahati at Gauhati in Criminal Revision No. 156 of 2009. Gopal Singh, Rituraj Biswas, Sujaya Bardhan for the Appellant. Naresh Kaushik, Sanjeev Kumar Bhardwaj, Vivya Nagpal Lalita Kaushik for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered ORDER 1. This petition has been filed against the impugned judgment and oraer dated 22.6.2009 passed by the High Court E F of Assam at Gauhati in C~minal Revision No. 156 of 2009 rejecting the case of the petitioner against the respondents that G they had forcibly taken the custody of the vehicle purchased by the petitioner on hire-purchase from them. The court has quashed the criminal proceedings against the respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that H 362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 11 S.C.R. A respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession and thus, committed a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been entertained by the Judicial Magistrate (Isl Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case No. B 608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti Zen) be given to the petitioner vide order dated 17.3.2009. The High Court has wrongly quashed the criminal proceedings pending before the learned Magistrate. 3. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing on behalf C of the respondents, has submitted that under the hire-purchase agreement, the financier remains the owner of the vehicle till the entire payment is made and, therefore, possession taken by the financier for non-payment of instalments by the petitioner could not be held an offence. Thus, the High Court has rightly D quashed the proceedings and no interference is required. 4. We have considered the rival submissions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. E 5. In Trilok Singh & Ors. v. Satya Deo Tripathi, AIR 1979 SC 850, this Court examined the similar case wherein the truck had been taken in possession by the financier in terms of hire purchase agreement, as there was a default in making the payment of instalments. A criminal case had been lodged against the financier under Sections 395, 468, 465, 4 71, 12- F B/34, l.P.C. The Court refused to exercise its power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. and did not quash the criminal proceedings on the ground that the financier had committed an offence. However, reversing the said judgment, this Court
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.