2001 (8) TMI 1382 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellants committed offences u/s 406, 420, 120-B IPC by repossessing the vehicle.
2. Whether the hire purchase agreement provided the appellants the right to repossess the vehicle.
3. Whether the repossession of the vehicle by the appellants constituted theft or any other criminal offence.

Summary:

Issue 1: Offences u/s 406, 420, 120-B IPC
The respondent filed a criminal complaint alleging that the appellants forcibly took away the vehicle from a motor mechanic, thus committing offences u/s 406, 420, 120-B IPC. The Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons. The High Court declined to quash the proceedings, holding that the allegations could make out offences, especially under Section 379 IPC.

Issue 2: Right to Repossess the Vehicle
The appellants contended that the hire purchase agreement provided them the right to repossess the vehicle in the event of default by the respondent. The agreement explicitly stated that the appellants would remain the absolute owners of the vehicle until all instalments were paid. Clause 8(viii) and Clause 9(ii) of the agreement granted the appellants the right to repossess the vehicle and enter any premises for this purpose without liability for civil or criminal action.

Issue 3: Repossession Constituting Theft or Criminal Offence
The Court held that the repossession of the vehicle by the appellants did not constitute theft or any other criminal offence. The essential element of 'dishonest intention' required for theft was lacking, as the appellants were exercising their contractual right. The Court referenced previous judgments, including *Sardar Trilok Singh & Ors. vs. Satya Deo Tripathi* and *K.A. Mathai & Anr. vs. Kora Dibbikutty & Anr.*, which supported the view that repossession under a hire purchase agreement does not amount to theft or any criminal offence.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, and quashed the complaint and any proceedings initiated pursuant to it. The Court emphasized that the hire purchase agreement's terms provided the appellants the right to repossess the vehicle, and no criminal offence was made out against them.