Tata Motors Finance Ltd. vs State and Another

Narayan Dhingra, J.—This petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 24 of 2010, P.S. Harsh Vihar, registered u/s 392/411/34 IPC on the basis of compromise. Notice of the petition was sent to Respondent who stated that he was not bound by the compromise and did not agree for quashing of FIR.

Brief facts relevant for disposing of this petition are that Respondent had taken a car on hire-purchase basis from the Petitioner and stopped payment of EMI of the car. In terms of the contract, the car was repossessed by the agents of the Petitioner when the Respondent was on road with the car. The Respondent lodged a report with the police that there was an amount of Rs. 30,000/- cash lying in the car when it was forcibly taken away by the agents of the Petitioner. The car was seized by the police and an application for superdari was made by both, the Petitioner and the Respondent. The Petitioner claimed ownership of the car in terms of the contract since EM Is were not paid. During pendency of the two applications for release of car on superdari, the parties wanted to negotiate the matter and hence they were sent to Mediation Centre. In Mediation Centre, it was agreed that if Respondent paid up-to-date amount of EM Is totaling to Rs. 57,900/-, the Petitioner shall not oppose the vehicle being released in favor of Respondent on super Dari. A detailed Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was entered into by the parties which contained an obligation on Respondent that the FIR shall be got quashed and that the Respondent shall cooperate in the quashing of the FIR. In view of this MoU, this petition has been filed.

Respondent stated that he had agreed only for release of car on superdari in his favor and had not agreed for quashing of FIR. This stand is contrary to MoU signed by him. Even otherwise, I find that the reports lodged in such cases are filed to exploit the opposite party. If the Respondent had Rs. 30,000/- cash available with him, there was no reason why he could not have paid the EMI in time. It seems that intention of Respondent was dishonest from the very beginning. He never wanted to pay EMI and he paid EMI only when the car was re-possessed as per the contract and now he again wants to turn dishonest after entering into a MoU with the Petitioner and taking benefit under it. Once the Respondent has taken benefit of the settlement arrived at between the parties, and got the car released in his favor, he is bound by the MoU. The petition is allowed. FIR No. 24 of 2010, P.S. Harsh Vihar, registered u/s 392/411/34 IPC and all proceedings emanating there from are hereby quashed.