1. - By this criminal misc. petition under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, petitioner seeks quashing of notice dated 8.10.1991 and FIR No. 101/96 registered at Police Station; Kotwali, Jaisalmer for offences under sections. 420, 419, 406,120-B, 465, 467, 468 & 471 IPC against the petitioner.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a truck was purchased by respondent No. 2 on hire purchase agreement from the petitioner-firm. The petitioner-firm is a non-banking financial company providing financial assistance to its customers. Respondent No. 2 failed to make the payment of instalment and, therefore, the petitioner had a right to repossess the truck financed by it.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 submit that the FIR lodged by respondent No. 2 discloses cognizable offences noticed above. They further submit that it is settled law that FIR can be quashed if on its bare reading, it does not constitute recognizable offence or the FIR is so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which, no prudent person can ever reach to a just conclusion flat there i:_ sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused or the: e s an express i~gal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of law. They further submit that the petitioner has earlier filed Criminal Misc. Petition No. 785/96 under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashing of the very same FIR. This Court by order dated 16.4.1999 dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the FIR in question by an elaborate order. The petitioner is again seeking quashing of the FIR on the very same grounds. I have gone through the order of this Court dated 16.4.1999 rendered in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 785/96 under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code The facts of the earlier petition and the facts of the instant case are by and lo g~: same relating to FIR No. 101/96, Police Station, Kotwali, Jaisalmer except the notice dated 8.10.2001. The said FIR case is being investigated by the police. The learned Public Prosecutor has filed an affidavit of the S.H.O., Police Station, Jaisalmer, who is presently investigating the said FIR case. He stated on oath that on 18.5.1999, the file of the present case was forwarded to C.I.D. (C.B.), Jaipur in pursuance of the orders of S.P., Jaisalmer. The Additional Director general, C.I.D., C.B., Rajasthan, Jaipur vide his order No.1001-9 dated 3.5.2001 handed over the investigation to Additional S.P., C.I.D., C.B., Jodhpur Shri Harish Chandra Singh. The said Addl. S.P., C.I.D., C.B., Jodhpur, then handed over the case on 14.5.2001 to Inspector Narayan Lal for investigation. Thereafter the said Additional S.P., C.I.D., C.B., Jodhpur vide his letter dated 15.6.2001 sent the file of this case to S.P., Jaisalmer to dispose of the case on merits. The S.P., Jaisalmer, thereupon directed the S.H.O., Police Station, Jaisalmer, for disposal of the case on merits vide his order dated 16.6.2001. The file was received by the present S.H.O. on 4.10.2001 and he carefully went through the file. By order dated 16.9.1999, Muralidharan, Saurabh Lal and Mahesh Kumar were granted anticipatory bail by the High Court. After considering all the material available on the investigation file, the Investigating Officer sent a notice dated 8.10.2001 by which the accused named in the FIR were called. Saurabh Lal was called for interrogation and investigation. It is pertinent to mention here that while granting anticipatory bail, a condition was incorporated that the petitioner (he or they) would make himself available for interrogation by the Police Officer as and when required. Thus, the petitioner was legally liable to make himself available for interrogation by the police and and when required. The Investigating Officer thought it proper to call the petitioner for interrogation, which was one of the conditions of h