JUDGMENT

Satish Chandra, J. - This is an application under Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying, that the complaint filed by the opposite-party against the petitioners be quashed.

2. The petitioner no. 13 is one of the partners of a partnership firm known as Brijbasi General Motor & Finance Co., Delhi, the petitioners nos. 2, 4 and 5 are employees of the said firm and the petitioner no. 1 is a relation and associate of petitioner no. 3.

3. It appears that the aforesaid Finance Company let out on hire a truck (No. UPL 3456) to the opposite-party Sadho Ram and one Ishwar Das under a hire purchase agreement executed by these two gentlemen on 9-2-1961. A sum of Rs. 1,500/- was paid at the time of the execution of the agreement and balance was agreed to be paid in eighteen monthly instalments so as to make a total of Rs. 25,692.50nP. The instalments were payable by the fifteenth of each month and the last instalment was payable by August, 1962.

4. The petitioner's case is that the opposite party defaulted in the payment of the instalments and up to October 1963 paid only Rs. 16,942.5OnP. when the Finance Company realised that the opposite party will not pay the balance due the hire purchase agreement was terminated and the opposite party was asked to surrender the truck and on his failure to do so the second petitioner seized the truck on 12-1-1964.

5. Five days later, on 17-1-1964 Sadho Rain, one of the two persons who had executed the hire purchase agreement, filed a complaint in the Court of Judicial Officer, Varanasi purporting to be under Sections 392, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that Sadho Ram, the complainant, was the owner of the truck and on the evening of 17-1-1964 the five petitioners forcibly took possession of the truck and in the process assaulted the complaint with fists and kicks. In the complaint there is no mention of any hire purchase agreement or of the fact that any amount was due payable by the complainant to the Finance Company in respect of the truck.

6. On 27-4-1964 the complainant Sadho Ram and two witnesses, Uma Shanker and Tek Chand, were examined by the Magistrate. The complainant stated that he and Ishwar Das were the owners of the truck and that the truck had been taken on, instalment basis from Brijbasi Company for about Rs. 25,500/-. He stated that lie had paid Rs. 22,000/- and odd towards that amount. In cross-examination he stated that about, three instalments were still due. Tin petitioners had filed the hire purchase agreement in the Court of the Magistrate. It showed that Tek Chand was a guarantor thereunder. This Tek Chand was produced by the complainant as P. W. 3. He stated in the witness-box that he was the guarantor of the truck in question. He proved his own signatures and that of Sadho Ram and Ishwar Das on the hire purchase agreement.

7. The petitioners claim that from the prosecution evidence itself it is clear that the complainant had obtained the truck under the hire purchase agreement with the Finance Company; that the petitioners who are the accused are connected with the Finance Company and that at least three instalments of about Rs. 3,000/- were due payable when the petitioners seized the truck. The petitioners' contend that on these admitted facts no offence of robbery under Section 392, I. P. C. or under Sections 323 etc. is made out and that the proceedings consequent on the complaint amount to an abuse of the process of the Court and as such ought to be quashed.

8. The main question is whether any offence under Section 392, I. P. C, i.e. robbery, is made out. In all robberies, Section 390, I. P. C. says there is either theft or extortion The complaint does not profess to make out any case of extortion. There is no allegations that by use of force the complainant was induced to part with the truck. The case is that the petitioner seized the truck and wanted to take it away and when the complainant obstructed he was beaten and hur