2012 (10) TMI 1168

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mitted that the respondent financers 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 (First Class), Guwahati (Assam) in Complaint Case No. 608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti Zen) to 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. On the contrary, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, has submitted that under the hire-purchase agreement, the financier remains the owner of the vehicle till the entire....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Kora Bibbikutty 1996 7 SCC 212 this Court had taken a similar view holding that in case of default to make payment of instalments the financier had a right to resume possession even if the hire-purchase agreement does not contain a clause of resumption of possession for the reason that such a condition is to be read in the agreement. In such an eventuality, it cannot be held that the financier had committed an offence of theft and that too, with the requisite mens rea and requisite dishonest intention. The assertion of rights and obligations accruing to the parties under the hire-purchase agreement wipes out any dishonest pretence in that regard from which it cannot be inferred that the financier had resumed the possession of the vehicle ....