Full Text
CRL. M.C.629/2007
0^ Date ofDecision : 4^*^ September, 2013 HDFC BANK LTD. Petitioner
Through Mr. Punit K. Bhalla and Ms.Chetna Bhalla, Advs.
Through Mr. Parveen Bhati, APP.
SI Radhey Shyam, P.S.
Pandav Nagar COR^^M
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA o/„ .niDGMENT (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner is seeking quashing of FIR No.67/2007, P.S. Anand Viliar under Section 406/506/120B IPC on the grotmd that no offencewhatsoever is made out.
2. Petitioner advanced a loan of Rs.3,65,000/- to respondent no.2 in April 2006 for purchase of aToyota Qualis vehicle under Loan-cum-Hypothecation Scheme. The loan was repayable in 35 installments of Rs.12,939/-. Respondent no.2 hypothecated vehicle no.DL-7CE-3824 to the petitioner Bank.
3. Respondent no.2 defaulted in repayment of loan and, therefore, vide notice dated 4"' September, 2006, the petitioner notified respondent no.2 that ifthe payment was not made within 7 Crl. M.C. 629/2007 Page 1of 3 2013:DHC:7156 days, the petitioner would be at liberty to take over the possession ofthe vehicle in terms of Clause 14 ofthe Loan Agreement.
4. Respondent no.2 did not comply with the notice and, therefore, the petitioner took over the possession of the vehicle on 24"^ November, 2006.
5. Respondent no.2 madea complaint to the police in respect of the vehicle repossessed by the petitioner which resulted in the FIR under Sections 406/506/120B IPG.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle in question and respondent no.2 was merely a bailee/trustee of the vehicle and in the event of default in repayment of the loan, the petitioner was legally entitled to take over the vehicle in terms of Clause 14 of the Loan Agreement. Learned counsel further submits that no criminal action can be taken againstthe fmancer uponrepossession of the vehiclein terms of the contract between the parties and he refers to and relies upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Sardar Trilok Singh, v. Satya Deo Tripathi, (1979) 4 SCC 396, K.A. Mathai v. Kora Bibbikutty, (1996) 7 SCC 212, Charanjit Singh Chadha v. Sudhir Mehta, (2001) 7 SCC 417, The Managing Director, Orix Auto Finance (India) Ltd. v. Jagmander Singh, (2006) 2 SCC 598, Suryapal Singh v. Siddha Vinayak Motors, (2012) 12 SCC 355 and Anup Sarmahi v. Bhola Nath Sharma, (2013) 1 SCC 400, and in support ofthis proposition. CrI. M.C. 629/2007
7. Learned APP for the State submits that the police has submitted a closure report after investigation as no case is made out against the petitioner.
8. There is no appearance on behalf of respondent no.2. No one appeared on behalf ofrespondentno.2 for the last six dates.
9. This case is squarely covered by the aforesaidjudgments and no offence whatsoever is made out against the petitioner. The FIR is therefore liable to be quashed.
10. The petition is allowed and FIR No.67/2007, P.S. Anand Vihar under Section 406/506/120B IPG is hereby quashed. J.irMIDHA,j' ' SEPTEMBER 04, 2013 dk