ORDER :

1. Learned counsels for the petitioner and learned Spl. P.P. for the State are present.

2. No one has appeared for the O.P. No. 2.

3. Heard the parties present.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that this Cr.M.P. has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C.P. Case No. 1863 of 2008 including the order taking cognizance dated 01.12.2010 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Dhanbad passed the summoning order finding prima facie case for the offence punishable u/s 403 and 417 of IPC against the several accused persons including the petitioner Rajeev Kumar Sinha as one of them.

5. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the O.P. No. 2/complainant had filed one complaint vide Complaint Case No. 1863/2008 and briefly pointing out the allegations as set out in the said Complaint that the complainant/O.P. No. 2 was borrower of a financial institution namely IndusInd Bank for the purchase of a Tempo under Hire Purchase Agreement after getting finance from the said bank and this petitioner, at the relevant point of time, was the In-charge (legal) of the said bank and joined the organization in August 2006 and thereafter he left the service in July 2009. The complainant alleged in the aforesaid complaint petition that the said bank had financed for the purchase of the tempo on the monthly installment of Rs. 2,900/- and the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs. 60,000/- as advanced Hire money and Rs. 5,000/- towards the finance charges and after being financed on 11.03.2006 the complainant took the tempo. And thereafter the complainant deposited monthly installment for the 2-3 months in one time which the accused persons accepted and thus he had deposited total amount to a sum of Rs. 87,000/- through various monthly installments and after one year all of a sudden, the accused persons snatched the vehicle from the complainant driver of the vehicle without prior notice and information. It has further been alleged by the complainant that when complainant went to the finance company after seizing vehicle with a sum of Rs. 15,000/- for depositing the due hire amount of installment and for the return of the hired vehicle, the accused persons asked to deposit the entire amount otherwise vehicle would not be returned to the complainant O.P. No. 2. It has further been alleged that the complainant was asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 99,000/- which could not be paid by the complainant due to financial constraints and as such the complainant alleged that Rs. 65,000/- (Rupees sixty five thousand) was cheated by accused person and also the new Tempo as the complainant had purchased the tempo under Hire-Purchase agreement for his unemployed son but after seizure of the tempo his son still got unemployed, so complainant was suffering huge loss due to accused person and lost Rs. 65,000/- (Rupees sixty five thousand) also.

It has also been alleged by the complainant that at the time of issuing tempo he was deliberately induced with an intention to deceive the complainant fraudulently by taking possession of the Tempo as the accused person had knowledge that the complainant had no money to pay on time to meet the demand if they seized the Tempo. It has further been stated by the complainant in the said complaint petition that it was surprised to the complainant when the tempo was seized by the accused person because accused persons breached the verbal contract, which was agreed upon by the accused person before receiving the tempo that the complainant may make the payment of dues hire monthly installment at a time in the crisis period and as such it was alleged by the complainant that the terms of the agreement and the provisions of the Hire - Purchase Act has been violated by the accused persons by mentioning several provisions of the terms and conditions of the agreement.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner ha