Point of Law: Jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. though is restrictive but can always be exercised in order to stop abuse of process of law.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for quashing of Complaint No.3 of 2021, titled as Sanjay Kumar vs. Meena & others and all subsequent proceedings pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No.3, Mandi, H.P.

2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of petition are that the petitioner had purchased a vehicle (Innova Crysta) for plying the same as taxi and had obtained financial assistance from AU Small Finance Bank. Petitioner entered into an agreement to sell dated 11.8.2020 with respondent, whereby the aforesaid vehicle was agreed to be transferred to respondent against total consideration of Rs. 21,44,000/-. Out of the aforesaid consideration amount, a sum of Rs. 2,30,000/- was paid to the petitioner and remaining amount of Rs. 19,14,000/- was to be paid to the financer AU Small Finance Bank in equal monthly installments of Rs. 33,000/-. Possession of the vehicle was handed over to the respondent. Allegedly, respondent defaulted in payment of installments to the AU Small Finance Bank. Petitioner re-possessed the vehicle. Before possessing the vehicle, petitioner had issued a legal notice to respondent on 5.3.2021. The notice was replied on behalf of the respondent vide reply dated 23.3.2021 and it was mentioned that as per agreement, the vehicle could be repossessed only on default of three consecutive installments. 3. Respondent filed an application before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C., seeking direction to the SHO, Police Station, Sadar to lodge FIR against the petitioner. The grievance of the respondent was that despite his depositing the overdue amount of Rs. 63,404/- with interest, the petitioner on 18.3.2021 had taken forcible possession of the vehicle at Shimla. Respondent had filed complaint to the police at Shimla but no action was taken. Respondent further alleged that later the vehicle was found at Manali and the respondent had made a request for handing over the vehicle to him and on his request, the vehicle was in fact handed over to him. However, on complaint of the petitioner, the vehicle was taken in possession by police and was wrongly released in favour of the petitioner.

4. Petitioner by way of instant petition has contended that though from perusal of contents of application, filed by respondent, no offence was made out against the petitioner, still learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No.3, Mandi has treated the application as complaint and has taken cognizance against the petitioner for commission of offence under Section 420 of IPC. It has further been contended on behalf of the petitioner that without admitting the commission of offence, the taking of cognizance by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No.3, Mandi in aforesaid matter was without jurisdiction, as no offence was even alleged to have been committed within the jurisdiction of said Court.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully.

6. Perusal of application filed under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. by respondent before learned trial Court reveals that reference has been made to agreement dated 11.8.2020 executed between the parties and on the basis of such agreement, respondent claimed right to possess of the vehicle. It was admitted in the application that an amount of Rs. 63,404/- had become due and payable to AU Small Finance Bank. Respondent further averred that he had received the legal notice from petitioner and thereafter he had cleared the overdue amount but despite of such clearance, the vehicle was re-possessed by petitioner at Shimla on 18.3.2021. Respondent further alleged that he had reported the matter to police at Shimla but no action was taken. It was further submitted that the respondent had found the vehicle at Manali and had made a request for handing over its possession to the petitioner. His request was acceded to but the petitioner lodged onlin