Criminal proceedings arising from disputes over contractual rights, financial liabilities, or repossession of assets under commercial agreements are unsustainable as theft if they lack clear, initial dishonest intention, and such prosecutions constitute an abuse of the process of law.

ORDER :

1. The present criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred seeking quashing of FIR No.246/2022 dated 11.10.2022 registered at Police Station Khinwsar, District Nagaur for offence under Section 379 IPC along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned FIR is is nothing but a manifest abuse of the process of law attended with mala fide and has been lodged by giving criminal colour to a purely civil and contractual dispute pertaining to possession and repossession of a financed vehicle. It is submitted that the petitioner is admittedly the registered owner of dumper bearing registration No.RJ-07-GB-6451 and the registration continues to remain in his name till date. It is further submitted that liabilities towards finance company, transport authorities, taxes and other statutory obligations also continued to remain upon the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel submits that an agreement dated 27.08.2018 was executed between the petitioner and one Om Prakash whereby possession of the vehicle was conditionally handed over subject to payment of installments and adherence to financial obligations. Attention of the Court has been invited to various conditions contained in the agreement indicating that in the event of default in installments, the petitioner retained rights over the vehicle including repossession thereof.

4. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 is not even a direct purchaser from the petitioner and claims rights only through alleged subsequent private transactions said to have been undertaken by Om Prakash. Learned counsel submits that despite alleged subsequent transfers, the registration certificate admittedly continued to remain in the name of the petitioner throughout.

5. Learned counsel further submits that prior to registration of the impugned FIR, the petitioner had already lodged complaint dated 07.05.2022 against Om Prakash and another regarding non- payment of installments and misuse of the vehicle. According to learned counsel, the said complaint clearly establishes that disputes concerning installments, liability and possession of the vehicle were already subsisting much before registration of the FIR and therefore the allegation of sudden dishonest intention on part of the petitioner is wholly untenable.

6. Learned counsel has also drawn attention towards the order dated 23.11.2022 passed by this Court while issuing notice in the present petition, wherein the Court specifically noticed the submissions that the petitioner was the registered owner of the vehicle; that agreement existed between the parties containing repossession clause in case of default; that installments had not been paid; and that the vehicle had allegedly been sold further without authority. It is submitted that after noticing the aforesaid circumstances and proprietary interest of the petitioner in the vehicle, interim protection came to be granted.

7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and submitted that though the vehicle may have continued in the name of the petitioner in transport records, possession thereof had already been transferred first to Om Prakash and thereafter to respondent No.2. It is submitted that respondent No.2 remained in settled possession of the vehicle and continued making installment payments. It is therefore argued that taking away the vehicle without consent prima facie constitutes offence under Section 379 IPC and disputed q