JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner before this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Cr.P.C.”) has prayed for quashing and setting aside the Criminal Case No.7214/2019, wherein he has been made an accused in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘N.I. Act’ for short) before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vadodara. The petitioner challenges the issuance of summons dated 22.02.2019 and all the consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof, contending that the same are illegal, untenable unsustainable, malafide and not maintainable in the eyes of law.

2. The petitioner states that he had purchased the vehicle being Maruti Swift bearing Registration No.GJ-06- FK-4360, availing the financial assistance from respondent no.2 – Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. by Hire Purchase Agreement in the year 2013. The value of the car was Rs.6,29,263/-, out of which the financial assistance availed by the petitioner was Rs.4,90,000/-, which the petitioner was to pay to respondent no.2 in 48 equal monthly installments along with interest of Rs.2,45,082/-. The petitioner states that seven cheques in the form of security were issued while entering into the Hire Purchase Agreement in the year 2013. It is stated that it was specifically agreed upon that, the cheques would be treated as security.

2.1 The petitioner further states that in pursuance of the Hire Purchase Agreement, he had paid Rs.5,35,830/- against the total amount of Rs.7,35,082/- and Rs.1,99,252/- was the outstanding amount as on December, 2018. It is stated that respondent no.2 had not issued few receipts against the payments made and as per their accounts, the outstanding total sum was Rs.4,13,350/-. The petitioner states that because of the financial crisis, he could not pay few of the installments due to which the respondent no.2 seized the car in order to release the outstanding dues on 28.12.2018 by issuing a Seizing Authority Letter.

2.2 The petitioner further states that the office of the respondent no.2 in Vadodara region got closed in the year 2015 due to some unavoidable circumstances, therefore, one “Rajshri Credit Corporation” has been acting as a franchise holder on behalf of respondent no.2 and the petitioner was informed about this fact by letter dated 21.08.2015, whereby he was instructed to pay all the installments to Rajshri Credit Corporation. The petitioner, thus states that certain cash payments were made by him to the said Corporation on several dates and for that receipts were issued to him and the said payment was towards the Hire Purchase Agreement in respect of the said vehicle.

2.3 The petitioner states that while entering into Hire Purchase Agreement, he was not provided with copy of the same and thus he has no custody of the agreement. The petitioner alleges that respondent no.2 very conveniently did not produce copy of the Hire Purchase Agreement in the criminal complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, which is under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

2.4 The petitioner contends that since the vehicle was seized by respondent no.2 on 28.12.2018 and subsequently sold to third party namely Kirtiji Ranchhodji Solanki and the sale proceeds had been realized and therefore under that circumstances, the Hire Purchase Agreement comes to an end between petitioner and respondent no.2; in spite of that fact, it is alleged that criminal case is filed against him. It is stated that respondent no.2 has misused cheques issued towards security, by depositing Cheque No.477285 on 13.12.2018 and since it got bounced on 17.12.2018, the respondent no.2 issued notice dated 08.01.2019 which was received by the petitioner on 21.01.2019. It is stated that cheque was towards security and when at a later date the ownership and possession of the vehicle has changed hands at the behest of respondent no.2, no criminal proceedings is maintainable under Section 138 o