1. This petition is filed by the accused in C.C. No:178/2005 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Sultanbathery, to quash the proceedings in that case. The 1st petitioner is the President and Managing Director of a Finance Company of which petitioners 2 and 5 are the employees. An agreement was entered into between the 1st respondent (hereinafter referred to as respondent) and the Petitioner Company. `.4,80,000/-was advanced to the respondent for the purchase of a mini lorry, on 6.11.2000. The amount so advanced was to be repaid in 36 instalments of `.18,000/-. The mini lorry was taken delivery by the respondent. A few instalments were stated to have been paid by the respondent. As the respondent committed default in paying the instalments the mini lorry was repossessed by the petitioner Company on 6.5.2002. A complaint was filed by him before the learned Magistrate which was forwarded to the police for investigation. The police, after conducting investigation referred the case as false. Then the respondent filed a protest complaint. After conducting inquiry, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the case against the petitioner for offences under sections 143, 148, 394, 427 and 506(ii) r/w 149 of I.P.C.

2. The Petitioners contend that as per the hire purchase agreement, the petitioner Company was authorized and empowered to repossess the vehicle on failure to pay the instalments. According to the petitioners due intimation was given to the respondents regarding the intended seizure of the vehicle. Immediately after the seizure also the police was informed and as such it cannot be said that it was a dishonest removal of the mini lorry. The petitioners also contend that they had not used force or threatened the respondent while taking possession of the vehicle. Therefore, the petitioners contend that the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate is bad and is thus liable to be quashed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in BHAGYA PRODUCTS V. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE 2003 (2) KLT 1054 where some guidelines were issued by that Court. In the aforesaid decision it was held:

"Conscious of the fact that parties are governed by a written contract and are bound by the terms of the contract which they have entered into with open eyes, and in view of the guidelines framed by the Reserve Bank of India which we find are not being honoured strictly by the finance companies, we issue the following guidelines to be strictly followed by all finance companies before it exercises its power to repossess a vehicle:-

(i) Whenever a cheque is not honoured for payment, it would be immediately brought to the notice of the borrower by issuance of a notice under registered post, to be posted at the address provided by the borrower and proof of dispatch by registered post at the given address would be considered as sufficient proof of service of notice.

(ii) 7 days time should be given reckoned from the date of service of the registered notice for clearance of the amount under the dishonoured cheque.

(iii) In case of second dishonour of cheque similar notice be provided drawing the attention of the borrower to the term of agreement entitling the lender to recall the entire loan. This notice should again give 7 days time to the borrower to pay the outstanding amounts as on date. The 7 days time to be reckoned from the date of service of the notice.

(iv) If the amount is not paid, it would be open to the finance company in exercise of its power under the finance agreement to recall the loan. If it exercises this power another notice be given to the borrower intimating that the loan has been recalled and the borrower should be called upon to tender the amount due within 7 days of receipt of notice. This notice again be sent by registered post at the address given by the borrower.

(v) If no amount is paid within the stipulated period as per the notice, finance company