The repossession and sale of the truck by the Lender Company, in accordance with the loan agreement and arbitral award, did not constitute criminal offenses under the Indian Penal Code.

Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.

This application invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court as enshrined under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as `Cr.P.C.') has been filed seeking quashing of the first information report (hereinafter referred to as `FIR') vide Kotwali P.S. Case No. 351 of 2016 dated 25.07.2016 instituted at the instance of the informant/opposite party no. 2 (hereinafter referred to as `the borrower') under Sections 420 and 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The FIR is based on a typed report submitted by the borrower to the Station House Officer, Kotwali Police Station, Patna wherein it is stated that the borrower is the registered owner of the truck bearing Registration No. BR-44-G/0442. He purchased the said truck under hire-purchase agreement. He was supposed to pay the value thereof amounting to Rs. 26,41,510/- in 44 monthly instalments. He paid 42 instalments till January, 2016 amounting to Rs. 25,05,804. It is further stated that on 10.03.2016, M/s. Shankar Maurya Motors has seized his truck whereafter on 29.03.2016, he met the Branch Manager and Managing Director of M/s. Shankar Maurya Motors with a sum of Rs. 1,35,706/- and requested them for release of the truck. However, they apprised him that as against the truck in question Rs. 2,80,000/- is due, which is over and above the dues of the instalments and it is only after the dues of the instalments and overdue charges are received, the truck shall be released. Thereafter, the borrower returned home and made arrangement for the demanded money. He again approached them on 29.06.2016 with overdue charges plus dues of instalments and requested the said M/s. Shankar Maurya Motors to release the truck. However, he was sent to the office of Tata Motors Finance Limited (hereinafter referred to as `the Lender Company') whereafter he approached the office of the Lender Company and explained him the entire situation. It is further stated that the Manager of the Lender Company sent him back to M/s. Shankar Maurya Motors whereafter he became disappointed and went to M/s. Shankar Maurya Motors. However, on seeing him, they got agitated and told him why he had returned. It is alleged that he again approached the Lender Company, but he was informed that the truck has already been sold and now nothing can be done.

3. On the basis of aforesated allegations, the borrower alleged that the accused persons cheated him in a planned manner in conspiracy with each other and dispossessed him of his truck.

4. Mr. Jitendra Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the instant FIR is manifestly attended with mala fide. He submitted that the petitioner is state in-charge of the Lender Company which co-relates him to the accused no. 3, i.e., the Manager of the Lender Company. He submitted that the accused no. 3 in the FIR is not an individual but an artificial person named by his designation. He has no role whatsoever in connection with the present incident as narrated in the FIR. He submitted that the borrower set the criminal investigation in motion by concealing material facts. He submitted that the Lender Company is a Non-Banking Finance Company of Tata Motors incorporated under Indian Companies Act, 1956 and has obtained Non-Banking Finance Company Licence. He submitted that the truck in question was financed by the Lender Company under Loan Cum Hypothecation Cum Guarantee Agreement (hereinafter referred to as `loan agreement') in which one Shri Rajeshwar Singh stood as guarantor of the borrower and the agreement was executed on 26.03.2012. According to him, the truck in question was hypothecated with the Lender Company and it was handed over to the borrower, who was under obligation to pay first instalment of Rs. 60,435/- and, thereafter, Rs. 60,025/- per month for 43 months as per agreement. However, he repeatedly defaulted in making of instalments, as agreed between the parties and, therefore, the Le