Car Loan | Bank Repossessing Vehicle Due To Borrower’s Default Does Not Tantamount To Robbery: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against employees of HDFC Bank Limited, initiated by one Sunil Kumar Sharma/opposite party no 2, who had availed a car loan from the aforesaid bank, to be repaid over 60 instalments, alongside taking another personal loan of Rs 90,000.

It was contended by the opposite party/complainant that he had fallen on extremely hard financial times in 2009 and could not repay further instalments of the loan, due to which the Bank and its agents had “forcibly and deceitfully repossessed” his vehicle.

In quashing the FIR filed against the Bank’s officials on counts of robbery, criminal intimidation, etc., a single bench of Justice Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury held:

From the attending facts of the case when it is found that the lender or financer took repossession of the vehicle, pursuant to the agreement executed by and between the parties, it cannot be said that the lender committed offence within the meaning of Penal Code with the requisite mens rea and dishonest intention. At best it could be a civil dispute which has been imbibed with the colour of criminality. In my humble opinion, this is the fit case to invoke the provision of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceeding of Jadavpur P.S. Case No. 657 of 2009 pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore to avert abuse of process of law, which I accordingly do. The criminal revision is thus allowed.

It was argued by the complainant that he received a phone call by a person/accused No 2, who expressed interest in developing a business partnership with him, and to facilitate the same, the complainant had sent his driver along with his car to pick up the accused No 2. Complainant argued that when the driver had reached the rendezvous point, the accused no 2, along with unknown persons forcibly entered the car, assaulted the driver, snatched the keys and fled away, allegedly with Rs 12,000 in the dashboard of the car.

It was submitted that although the complainant had filed a case at Jadavpur Police Station regarding the aforesaid events, no action had been taken and that the he had subsequently received a letter from HDFC Bank admitting to the fact that they had taken possession of his car.

It was submitted by the Counsel for the petitioners that the opposite party/complainant had purchased the aforesaid vehicle by obtaining a loan from HDFC Bank and that he had failed to repay the loan in terms of the agreement. It was submitted that both pre-repossession and post-repossession intimation was given to the jurisdictional police and the complainant had also been informed that his vehicle would be sold to realise the default amount, thereby not leaving any room for criminal proceedings.

Counsel for the State placed the case diary from which it was noted that HDFC bank had only taken repossession of the vehicle after giving information to the Purba Bidhannagar police and that the I.O. of the case had not been able to locate witnesses or materials to corroborate the alleged occurrence, due to which presumption under Section 114(e) [that judicial and official acts have been regularly performed] of the Evidence Act would apply to the present case.

Accordingly, in noting that the Bank’s officials had acted only in the course of their employment, and that their actions lacked the requisite mens rea to constitute any criminal offence, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioners.

Case: HDFC Bank Limited & Anr. V The State Of West Bengal & Anr.

Coram: Justice Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 228

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment