2025:CGHC:57157-DB Digitally signed by SHOAIB SHOAIBANWAR ANWARDate:

2025.11.26 10:38:38 +0530 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3399 of 2024

1 - Sukhdev Rai S/o Subhash Rai Aged About 38 Years R/o P.V. 38 Indraphrasta, Kanker, C.G.

2 - Gautam Mandal S/o Shri Jeevan Mandal Aged About 35 Years R/o P.V. 38 Indraphrasta, Kanker, C.G.

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Keshkal, District Kondagaon, C.G.

2 - Smt. Sita Bai Yadav W/o Late Shiv Prasad Yadav Aged About 57 Years R/o Bajarpara, Surdonger, Keshkal, District Kondagaon, C.G.

... Respondent(s)

(Cause title taken from CIS)

For Petitioner(s) : Shri B.P. Sharma, Shri P.R. Patankar and Ms. Vartika Shrivastava, Advocates For Respondent/State : Shri Malay Jain, Panel lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

25.11.2025

1. In compliance of the order dated 18.11.2025, the Office submitted its report on 19.11.2025 stating therein that though notice has been served upon respondent no. 2, but memo of appearance has not been filed by the said respondent. In view of the same, we proceed to hear the matter finally, by treating ‘deemed service of notice’ upon respondent no. 2.

2. The present Cr.M.P. has been filed with the following prayer:-

“It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. and in exercise thereof, quash FIR No.6/2024 dated 09.1.2024 and charge sheet bearing No.13/2023 filed by P.S. Keshkal under Section 294, 392, 34 of I.P.C. and criminal proceedings in criminal case no.23/24 pending before J.M.F.C. Kondagaon being violative of petitioners' fundamental & constitutional rights granted under the Constitution of India and amounting to abuse of process of Court and law in the facts and circumstances of case.

3. The facts of the case are that the petitioners are employees of Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., petitioner No.1 working as a Collection Executive and petitioner No.2 as a Driver at its Kanker branch. The Company had financed an amount of Rs.4,95,000/- to the husband of the respondent No.2 namely; Shiv Prasad Yadav (now deceased) under a loan agreement dated 22.07.2021 for purchase of a Shivnath Tractor, repayable in ten half-yearly instalments, the first due on 11.08.2021. After disbursal of the loan and delivery of the tractor, the borrower defaulted in payment, for which a notice dated 14.09.2022 was issued. Upon the death of the borrower and continued defaults, the Company exercised its contractual right to repossess the vehicle through the petitioners. The FIR itself admits that the borrower had taken the tractor on finance and had paid only three installments, and grievance is essentially that the petitioners, without serving notice on the complainant, came on 20.10.2023 stating that they were from the Company and repossessed the tractor. On this basis, offences under Sections 294, 392 and 34 IPC were registered; the petitioners were issued notice on 09.12.2023, arrested, and later released on bail by order dated 12.01.2024.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even if the allegations made in the FIR and the charge-sheet are accepted in their entirety, no offence whatsoever, much less the offences under Sections 294, 392 and 34 IPC, is made out against the petitioners. It is urged that the dispute, on its face, is purely civil in nature arising out of a hire-purchase/loan-cum- hypothecation arrangement, wherein the ownership of the financed vehicle always remains with the financier, and the borrower continues merely as a trustee/bailee. Therefore, repossession of the vehicle upon default is an act squarely within the contractual domain and cannot constitute any criminal offence. It is submitted that the law on this aspect stands settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as early as in Trilok Singh v. Sa