In a hire purchase agreement, the purchaser remains a trustee/bailee on behalf of the financer/financial institution, and ownership remains with the latter. The repossession of the vehicle by the financer does not constitute a criminal offence.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State.

2. Nobody has responded on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 in spite of repeated calls, although appearance has been made on his behalf by way of filing the vakalatnama and identical was the situation on 03.08.2022. As such, this petition has been heard in absence of O.P. No. 2.

3. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Protest-cum-Complaint Petition C.P. Case No. 373 of 2011 [arising out of Balidih P.S. Case No. 05 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. No. 77 of 2011] including the order taking cognizance dated 12.12.2011, by which, cognizance for the offence under Sections 379 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro.

4. The complainant filed a C.P. Case No. 787/2010, in which the complainant has alleged regarding forcible possession of his vehicle by the Financer M/s Magma Finance Limited. The said complaint was sent to Balidih P.S. for registration of FIR and investigation. The Balidih P.S. registered the case vide Balidih P.S. Case No. 05/2011 and after investigation submitted final report by observing that the case was untrue and the police recommended for initiation of prosecution against the informant under section 182 and 211 of the IPC. Thereafter, the complainant filed a protest cum complaint petition in the court of learned C.J.M. Bokaro alleging therein that the complainant purchased a truck bearing Registration No. JH-09-H- 7010 from Magma Finance Limited having Branch Office at Sector -IV, B.S. City, Bokaro. The further case of the complainant is that the complainant paid altogether 31 installments but the Financer was trying to seize the vehicle. It is alleged that on 7.9.2010 when the truck was loaded with bricks and coming from Gola the accused persons boarded on Bolero vehicle illegally captured the truck. It is alleged that the accused persons abused and assaulted the driver and khalasi of the truck and looted a mobile phone from the driver of the vehicle.

5. Mr. Sah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the complainant filed a complaint petition before the learned CJM, Bokaro earlier vide complaint petition No. 787 of 2010 and the learned CJM has been pleased to send the complaint petition for institution of the FIR in Balidih P.S. and O/c Balidih P.S. instituted the FIR, vide Balidih P.S. Case No. 05 of 2011 under Sections 341, 323, 379, 504/34 of the IPC. He further submits that after investigation, the police has submitted the final form stating that the case is found to be false and after being dissatisfied with the final report, the O.P. No. 2 filed a protest petition in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, being Protest-cum- Complaint Petition No. 373 of 2011, in which, the learned court has taken cognizance under Sections 379 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He further submits that in the cognizance, nothing has come that what are the prima facie materials against these petitioners. He further submits that the complainant has approached the office of Magma Finance Ltd at Dhanbad for getting finance for purchase of a truck, wherein a sum of Rs. 8,33,000/- has been financed to the complainant for purchase of the truck of Tata Company. He further submits that an agreement was entered into, in which, one Sachitanand Singh was made a guarantor. As per the agreement, the complainant had to pay Rs. 25,400/- as monthly installment and the total installment was fixed of 44 EMIs. He further submits that just after six months, the complainant became defaulter in making the payment of monthly installment and he is not paying the EMI and thereafter the company has issued notice several times to the complainant and ultimately the financer company has repossessed the vehicle in question on