Vikas Investment Company vs The State

K.S. Gupta, J.—This petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. filed by M/s. Vikas Investment Company, petitioner, seeks setting aside of the order dated 16th September, 1999 passed by a Metropolitan Magistrate and also the release of vehicle bearing registration No. DL IGA-0318 on superdari in its favour.

It is alleged that the petitioner carries on business of finance of vehicles on hire purchase and is the owner of vehicle bearing registration No. DL IGA-0318, a 1992 Model Tata (Tanker). This vehicle was given on hire purchase to Pritam Singh s/o Mahender Singh under an agreement dated 9th September 1996. Under that hire purchase agreement the hirer had undertaken to pay the amount of Rs. 2,68,000/- at the rate of Rs. 11.200/- per month in 24 installments. The last Installment being in the sum of Rs. 10,400/-. It is further alleged that one Shardha Nand Tyagi lodged FIR No.1070/98 with PS Mangolpuri that said Pritam Singh had carried his stock of oil in said tanker which was found abandoned after misappropriating the stock of oil. Said vehicle was initially parked at PS Shivani in District Bhiwani (Haryana) but was brought in October 1998 to PS Mangolpuri, Delhi. It is also alleged that after waiting for a considerable time an application for release of said vehicle on superdari was filed by the petitioner on 28th August, 1999 on which report was called from PS Mangolpuri by the Metropolitan Magistrate. HC Jai Prakash reported to the M.M. that said Pritam Singh has been declared proclaimed offender and the police have no objection if the vehicle is given on superdari to the petitioner. Only 10 installments have been paid by now. Despite that the application of the petitioner was dismissed by the impugned order dated 16th September, 1999. Along with the petition photostat copies of the agreement dated 9th September, 1996 entered into in between the petitioner and aforesaid Pritam Singh, hirer, registration certificate issued by the Motor Licencing Officer, Delhi and statement of account pertaining to hirer have been filed.

It was urged by Sh. B.T. Singh appearing for the petitioner that the vehicle in question is lying idle for more than a year at PS Mangolpuri and there are chances of its being spoiled if the same is kept idle further. According to him under hire purchase agreement dated 9th September, 1996 the petitioner continues to be the owner of vehicle and the impunged order declining to release the vehicle in favor of petitioner is legally erroneous. Strong reliance was placed on the decision in M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shri R. Khaishiulla Khan and others, 1993 Crl. L.J. 1069.

Hire purchase agreement dated 9th September 1996 (photostat copy at pages 10 to 13 of the paper book) confirms the averments made in petition that the petitioner company is the owner of said vehicle and the same was given on hire purchase to said Pritam Singh who had undertaken to repay the total amount of hire of Rs. 2,68,000/- in the manner set out in Second Schedule appended to that agreement. In the certificate of registration pertaining to said vehicle at page 15 name of the petitioner company is mentioned against the column of HP/lease agreement with. In the statement of account at page 14 a sum of Rs. 1,20,303/- is shown as due from said Pritam Singh. At the time of hearing in the case police file in respect of FIR 1070/98 u/s 407 IPC PS Mangolpuri was retained which, interalia, goes to show that on the basis of complaint made by Sharadhanand Tyagi said case was registered against above said Pritam Singh and as he had been absconding he has been declared proclaimed offender.

In the decision in M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd., (supra) release of vehicle was claimed both by the hirer and the financier and after noticing the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, Contract Act and the decisions cited, a Division Bench of Karnataka High Court held that in case of default in payment of installments by hirer the financier is entitled to interim custody of the seized vehicle. I agree with that view taken by the Division Bench. Applying the ratio in the said decision to the facts of present case the petitioner is entitled to the release of said vehicle in its favor on superdari u/s 451 Cr.P.C. and the impugned order being in the nature of abuse of process of court deserves to be set aside u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

Petition is, Therefore, accepted, order dated 16th September, 1999 is set aside and the vehicle bearing registration No. DL IGA-0318 is allowed to be released in favor of the petitioner company on its furnishing indemnity bond in the sum of Rs. 3 lakhs to the satisfaction of the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate that pending case FIR No. 1070/98 u/s 407 IPC PS Mangolpuri it will not create third party interest and produce the vehicle as and when required by the court.