I.A. Ansari, J.

1. When would a financier's act of re-possession of a vehicle, which is covered by a hire-purchase agreement, not amount to an offence of theft? This is the cardinal issue, which these this application made under Section 482 Cr PC has raised. Yet another important question, which arises for consideration, is: When the financier or his agent commits any 'offence', while in the act of repossessing the vehicle, whether commission of such an 'offence' would make the financier and/or his agent, as the case may be, liable for prosecution under the appropriate penal provisions With the help of this Criminal Petition, made under Section 482 Cr PC the petitioner, who is one of the accused in Complaint Case No. 242/2007, has sought to get set aside and quashed the order, dated 04.07.2007, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonitpur, in CR Case No. 242 of 2007, taking cognizance of offence, under Sections 379 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC, and directing issuance of process against the accused No. 1 (i.e., the present petitioner) under Section 379/34 IPC and also process against the accused No. 2 (who is not petitioner in the present case) under Sections 379/506/34 IPC.

2. I have heard Mr. D. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. None has appeared on behalf of the complainant-opposite party. However, I have heard Mr. Z. Kamar, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam.

3. While considering the present application, made under Section 482 Cr PC, it needs to be noted that the present petitioner, who is one of the accused in the said complaint case, has put to challenge the order, dated 04.07.2007, so far as the same concerns the present petitioner.

4. The question, therefore, which falls for determination, in the present petition, is as to whether the ingredients of offence, under Section 379 IPC, read with Section 34 IPC, stood attracted to the facts of the present case so far as the present petitioner is concerned.

5. For the purpose of answering the questions, posed above, let me, first, consider the case as projected by the complainant. The case of the complainant, as unfolded by the complaint, may, in brief, be described thus:

(i) Accused No. 1 is the collection manager of ICICI Bank Ltd., Panbazar Branch, Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as the respondent bank). The complainant, who is a businessman, being in need of a four-wheeler, approached the respondent bank and, after initial discussion, the respondent bank agreed to sanction loan to the complainant for the purpose of enabling the complainant purchase a four-wheeler and, as per the agreement reached between the complainant and the respondent bank, the complainant made a down-payment of Rs. 1,27,490/- to the respondent bank and the respondent bank disbursed a loan of Rs. 5,77,000/- to the complainant, which was to be repaid to the respondent bank with interest.

(ii) Though the complainant had been paying the dues (installments) regularly, yet, on 21.04.2007, at about 7-15 p.m., the driver of the complainant's said vehicle, with one working staff in the vehicle, was driving the vehicle to Tezpur from Gohpur and, on the way, when they reached a place called Dhaleswar, accused No. 2, who owns Pragati Repo Agency, stopped the vehicle, asked the driver and the said staff of the vehicle to get off the vehicle and hand over the keys of the vehicle to them. When the driver refused to do so, accused No. 2 and his associates began to abuse him. Accused No. 2 and his associates also threatened the driver and the said staff of the vehicle with dire consequences and, in fact, they assaulted the driver and the accused No. 2 forcibly, snatched away the keys of the vehicle from the driver and took possession of the vehicle.

(iii) When the driver and the said staff of the vehicle wanted to know from the accused No. 2 the reason for such highhandedness, accused No. 2 told the driver that they were repossessing the vehicle under the instruction of accused No. 1