CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOUS No.31063 OF 2004 In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1. TATA FINANCE LIMITED THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, RANGNATHAN SRINIVASAN, S/o – Late B. Ranganathan Tata Finance Ltd. Apeejay House Block- B, 8th Floor, 15 Park Street Kolkata-16 2. Rajdeo Singh, son of Shri Kedar nath Singh an employee and C/o – M/s Maurya Motors, Shahid Road, back to Pilgrim Hospital, P.S. Kotwali, At & District – Gaya. 3. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kr. Singh, S/o – Shri Kishor Singh, resident of Dhansir Pd. Airo Drom, District – Gaya. ---------- Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Survesh Kumar, S/o – Shri Vijay Kumar, resident of village & P.O.- Dobhi, District – Gaya. ---------(Respondents) ***** For the Petitioners : Mr. Anjani Kr.Sinha, Adv. For the State : Mr. Umesh Pd. Singh, A.P.P. ***** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHILESH CHANDRA ***** Akhilesh Chandra, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public prosecutor for the State. None turned up on behalf of opposite party no.2 the complainant. 2. This application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of the order dated 05.01.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sherghati in complaint case No. 510/2003 and Tr. No. 908/2003 dated - 2 - 20.10.2003 taking cognizance for the offences under Sections 420/149 of the Indian Penal Code against all the accused persons including the petitioners. 3. The opposite party no.2 filed the complaint against one Anup Kumar besides the three petitioners stating therein that being an unemployed youth, he entered into a verbal agreement with said Anup Kumar to purchase a Truck bearing Registration No. BR2B – 7761 for Rs. 3,20,000/- and Rs. 2,00,000/- was paid in cash and Rs. 1,20,000/- through cheque to the said Anup Kumar. Thereafter, the Truck was brought in the workshop known as Anil Body Builder at Maulanachak Sherghati, where repairs was conducted and a sum of Rs. 1,17,400/- was invested by the complainant for making the Truck up to mark and in running condition. In lieu of the agreement, said Anup Kumar also executed a sale letter on 27.08.2003 roughly 19 to 20 days after the verbal agreement and on payment of money etc. 4. It is further stated in the complaint that on 26.08.2003 rest of the accused persons with police officials arrived at the workshop and - 3 - took away the Truck on the pretext of being representatives of financer of the Truck on getting information the complainant approached accused no.1 and other officials but nothing could be done in spite of assurance by said Anup Kumar and the Truck which was initially kept at police station was released in favour of other accused persons giving rise to filing of the complaint, wherein cognizance was taken. The petitioners excluding Anup Kumar have come to this Court seeking quashing of the impugned order to the extent affecting their interest. 5. The petitioners have come out with the case that they are owner of the Truck which was given to Anup Kumar on hire purchase agreement, copy is before this Court as Annexure – 2. He failed to repay the money due as per terms of agreement, the petitioners have taken away the vehicle in question no offence have been committed by them further they are not at all concerned with the agreement or advancement of money by the complainant to Anup Kumar a person not entitled to transfer the vehicle unless entire dues of the financer owner is clear and vehicle is finally transferred to him. - 4 - 6. From the complaint petition also it does not appear that at any point of time, the petitioners though named accused 2 to 4 were involved in the agreement between complainant and accused no.1 Anup Kumar and the agreement Annexure – 2, apart from other annexures showing details of payment by Anup Kumar to the financer showing huge amount lying against him and request letters made by the financer to the police authorities where they kept the vehicle after taking away from the workshop at subsequent release order etc. in their favour. apart from the terms and conditions of agreement between the petitioners and accused no.1 stating the status of accused no.1 and right of recovery of possession of the vehicle in question accrued to the petitioners are sufficient to indicate that they have committed no offence and taking away the vehicle or not paying any heed to the request of complainant by the petitioners to refund of the amount invested by him or return of the vehicle constitutes no offence. 7. If there was any agreement to sale of the vehicle in question between Anup Kumar and the complainant opposite party no. 2 and any - 5 - advancement is made by the complainant in pursuance of such agreement. It is concerned between the two only and they alone are to face the consequences of the latches or wrong, if any, committed by them. 8. The instant case, stands squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court in a Case of Charanjit Singh Chadha and others v. Sudhir Mehra reported in (2001)7 SCC 417; wherein in para 17, it has clearly been held which reads as such: “The hire-purchase agreement in law is an executory contract of sale and confers no right in rem on the hirer until the conditions for transfer of the property to him have been fulfilled. Therefore, the repossession of goods as per the term of the agreement may not amount to any criminal offence.” 9. Accordingly, impugned order and proceeding before the court below to the extent of the petitioners is hereby quashed and this application stands allowed. Patna High Court Date:The 29th July,2010 Rajeev/N.A.F.R. (Akhilesh Chandra, J.)