JUDGMENT :

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.

1. This revisional application is for quashing of proceedings in Durgapur Police Station Case No. 178 of 2018 dated 29.04.2018 corresponding to G.R. No. 611 of 2018 pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durgapur under Sections 467/471/474/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The petitioner company is engaged in the business of providing financial facilities to its various customers for purchase of vehicles including commercial vehicles amongst others.

3. Durgapur Police Station Case No. 178 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. NO. 611 of 2018 was lodged against the petitioners and other co-accused persons pursuant to an order passed in an application filed by the opposite party no. 2 under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durgapur alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 467/471/474/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The case as made out in the written complaint is to the effect that the defacto complainant/opposite party no. 2 entered into a Loan cum Hypothecation agreement with the petitioner company being agreement no. 5001140045 dated 02.08.2013 for purchase of a vehicle having registration no. WB 39A-7905.

5. The defacto complainant was regularly paying the monthly installments but with ulterior motive the said company refused to accept the loan installments. The accused nos. 1, 2 and 3 on 18.04.2015 seized the vehicle having registration no. WB39A-7905 and kept it in a parking yard.

6. The accused persons/company, after careful scrutiny of all documents submitted by the opposite party no. 2 and upon ascertaining the financial credentials, age, qualifications and employment of the said opposite party no. 2 had sanctioned a commercial vehicle loan.

7. The company agreed to finance a sum of Rs. 18,50,000/-to the opposite party no. 2 for the purchase of the said (truck) vehicle. It was agreed that the opposite party no. 2 would clear off his financial liabilities by paying Rs. 15,000/-for the first month, Rs. 59,000/-per month for the second to twenty sixth month, Rs. 51,000/-per month for the twenty seventh to thirty sixth month and Rs. 48,289/-per month for the rest thirty seventh to forty fifth month commencing from 2nd March, 2013. An agreement which included an Arbitration clause was executed by and between the parties.

8. It is the case of the petitioner that the opposite party no. 2/complainant defaulted in making timely repayment of the loan installments and inspite of repeated request, the opposite party no. 2 did not clear the outstanding dues and was then categorized by the petitioner/company as a wilful defaulter. A cheque bearing no. 787622 dated 4th August, 2014 for Rs. 14,65,197.63/-issued by the opposite party towards the outstanding dues was returned unpaid by the bank. A proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act was initiated and is pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durgapur being CRR/421/2014.

9. The dispute was then referred by the petitioner/company to the Sole Arbitrator, Sri P.C. Phalgunan. The company preferred an application under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the learned Arbitrator by his order dated 18.04.2015 was pleased to observe that the said company/claimant may repossess the hypothecated vehicle and sell/transfer the vehicle for realization of the outstanding loan amount.

10. Inspite of the order of the learned Arbitrator dated 18.04.2015 the opposite party no. 2 refused to make payment. The company then had no option but to execute the order dated 18.04.2015 whereby the vehicle in question was peacefully repossessed on 15.05.2015 upon due compliance with the necessary norms. Both pre and post repossession intimations were given to the jurisdictional Police station. Subsequently the said company had disposed off the said vehicle strictly in conformity with the specific