Allahabad High Court
Shivam Dubey And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 25 September, 2025
Author: Rajnish Kumar
Bench: Rajnish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:60037
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1081 of 2025
Shivam Dubey And 4 Others
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Syed Amir Hasan, Afaq Zaki Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 10
HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.
1. Heard Sri Syed Amir Hasan, learned counsel for the revisionists, the learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record.
2. The present revision has been filed assailing the order dated 25.08.2025 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Ambedkar Nagar in Sessions Trial No.133 of 2025 (State Vs. Shivam Dubey and Others), by which application filed by the revisionists under Section 250 B.N.S.S. for discharge has been rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that revisionists are employees/representatives of Dhiraj Singh Agency, which is a Service Provider of Tata Motors Finance Solution Limited (In short ?Tata Motors?). Respondent no.2 had taken loan from Tata Motors and on account of default in payment of instalments, the matter was referred to the Arbitration and the learned sole Arbitrator passed an interim order on 28.11.2024 directing the respondent to forthwith handover possession of vehicle bearing Make/Model SIGNA 5530 S bearing Registration No.UP 42 DT 3644, Engine No.32J95436980 and Chassis No.MAT828053PAK12028 to the authorized representative of the claimant. It was further provided that in case the respondent fails to handover the possession of the said vehicle as above, claimant are allowed to take possession/seize/recover the said vehicle from the respondent and/or from any other person, who may be in possession of the said vehicle wherever it may be situated with the help of police if necessary.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that pursuant thereto, Dhiraj Singh Agency/Service Provider directed respondent no.2 to handover possession of vehicle by means of letter dated 17.12.2024 but the same was not handed over therefore, Tata Motors gave an intimation through e-Post to the Station House Officer of police station Kotwali Ambedkar Nagar, district Ambedkar Nagar on 19.12.2024 at 4.30 PM to the effect that in case any information of crime is given before or after recovery of vehicle, no action should be taken against it. Thus, the revisionists being employees of Dhiraj Singh Agency, which is a Service Provider of Tata Motors, recovered the vehicle on 19.12.2024 under intimation to police. Thus, the submission is that the impugned order has wrongly and illegally been passed without considering the aforesaid facts and the material available on record before the court below and that the revisionists are only employees of Service Provider of Tata Motors.
5. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the submissions of learned counsel for revisionists and submitted that in compliance of the order passed by sole Arbitrator dated 28.11.2024, possession of the vehicle in question could have been taken with the help of police only and the revisionists could not have proceeded to take possession of the vehicle from respondent no.2 without help of police. Thus, the impugned order has rightly been passed in accordance with law.
6. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, going through the interim order passed by Arbitrator as also upon perusal of relevant materials available on record of this revision, it reveals that admittedly the respondent no.2 had taken loan from Tata Motors for purchase of vehicle in question. However, instalment could not be paid by him in time, therefore, Tata Motors instituted proceedings for recovery and the matter was referred for Arbitration. The sole Arbitrator initiated Arbitration Proceedings No.TMFSL/17/802 of 2024 and passed an interim order dated 28.11.2024 directing the respondent no.2 to forthwith handover possession of vehicle in question to the authorized representative of the claimant. It was further provided that in case the respondent fails to handover the possession of the said vehicle as above, claimant are allowed to take possession/seize/recover the said vehicle from the respondent no.2 and/or from any other person, who may be in possession of the said vehicle wherever it may be situated with the help of police if necessary and till the possession of the vehicle is handed over or taken by the claimant, the respondent/their servants/agents are hereby restrained from selling/transferring/creating third party rights/change or parting with possession of the said vehicle in any manner whatsoever.
7. It is apparent that in pursuance thereto, on 17.12.2024, Dhiraj Singh Agency, who claim itself to be Service Provider of Tata Motors gave a notice to respondent no.2 in pursuance of interim order dated 28.11.2024 and thereafter they proceeded to take possession of the vehicle in question on 19.12.2024 at 4.00 PM stopping the loaded vehicle in the way while the respondent no.2 with his Khalasi was going from Bihar to Ambedkar Nagar near Akbarpur Bypass Nyotaria bridge and manhandled to the respondent no.2 also and after recovery of said vehicle, an intimation was given on the same day i.e. 19.12.2024 by Tata Motors to the Station House Officer of police station Kotwali Ambedkar Nagar, district Ambedkar Nagar with a request that no criminal prosecution may be launched against it before or after recovery of said vehicle.
8. It is settled law that till such time the ownership of the mortgaged goods is not transferred to the purchaser, the lender/financier normally continues to be the owner of the goods, but that does not entitle him to take possession of the vehicle by use of force that too by engaging gangsters, goons and musclemen i.e. so called recovery agents. In the present case, it could not have been done for the reason also that there was an interim order by the sole Arbitrator and the possession if not delivered by the respondent no.2 could have been taken only with the help of the police and not with the help of musclemen and recovery agents in the manner in which it has been taken.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Magma Fincorp Limited Vs. Rajesh Kumar Tiwari; (2020) 10 SCC 399, has held that financier being the owner of the vehicle which is the subject matter of higher-purchase agreement, may take the possession when the hirer does not make payment of instalments/hire charges in terms of the hire-purchase agreement. However, such re-possession cannot be taken by recourse to physical violence, assault and/or criminal intimidation, nor can such possession be taken by engaging gangsters, goons and musclemen as so called recovery agents. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Citicorp Maruti Finance Limited Vs. S. Vijayalaxmi; (2012) 1 SCC 1 which has been relied upon in the aforesaid judgment of Magma Fincorp Limited (supra) and in the case of ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Prakash Kaur and Others; (2007) 2 SCC 711 has also taken the similar view.
10. In view of above, in case possession of the vehicle in question was not handed over by the respondent no.2 to Tata Motors in compliance of interim order dated 28.11.2024 passed by sole Arbitrator, the possession could have been taken with the help of police if necessary but the Tata Motors or its Service Provider or their employees could not have taken the law in their hands for taking possession of the vehicle in question. Thus, this Court is of the view that the impugned order has rightly been passed by the court below, which is in accordance with law and merely because the revisionists are employees of the Service Provider, they are not entitled for any relief.
11. The revision is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed.
(Rajnish Kumar,J.)
September 25, 2025
Rks.
