Judgment Anand Prasad Sinha, J. 1. This application is for quashing of the First information Report, Annexure-1 to the petition, giving rise to Nawadah P. S. Case no.0190 1983 dated 30 6-1983 under Sec.406 of the Indian Penal Code and consequently to quash investigation. 2. It appears that the petitioner, who happened to be un-employed mining engineer had obtained loan to the tune of Rs.86,000 from the State Bank of india, Nawadah Branch hereinafter to be referred to as the Bank respondent for purchase of a mini bus. This was in response to a scheme launched by the State government for sell employment of unemployed Graduates. Accordingly, he had purchased a mini-bus being registration No. BHP 5606 and was also granted route permit (temporary) for plying of the said mini-bus in his name. 3. The petitioner had to execute an agreement with the respondent Bank at the time of taking the loan. He was required to pay of the entire loan with interest in 39 instalments and the rate of interest payable was 14 per cent perannum. 4. According to the ascertain of the petitioner he had already paid Rs.86,00/- and Rs.15,000 towards interest, learned counsel has stated that as a matter of fact, more payments have been made thereafter and the total amount of Rs.1,27,120 has been paid up till now. This has not been denied by the bank respondent. However, the Bank respondent has claimed that Rs.65,000/-and odd was still due against the petitioner till September, 1983. 5. Respondent Bank, probably, had issued a notice for payment of the loan and instalment amount and according to the case of the respondent Bank the petitioner had evaded and avoided to make payment and also had refused to produce the vehicle for inspection. 6. Consequently, a First Information Report dated 30-6-1983 had been lodged. (Annexure-1) by the Bank respondent against the petitioner. The relevant portion of the first information report is being mentioned below for its proper appreciation : 6_689_BLJ1_1988.htm 7. From perusal of the First Information Report it Would appear that an allegation had been made that the petitioner had obtained loan in the year 1976 payable in three years. In spite of information repeated requests and reminders, be did not turn up and had defaulted. Accordingly, a request was made to the police that the vehicle may be seized and the dues be recovered. 8. In spite of information repeated requests and reminders, be did not turn up and had defaulted. Accordingly, a request was made to the police that the vehicle may be seized and the dues be recovered. 8. Consequently, as stated above, Nawadah P. S. Case No.0190 of 1983 under Sec.406 of the Indian Penal Code had been registered giving rise to the present writ application. 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the pstitioner has submitte that the lodging of the First Information Report, the prayer for seizure and recovery of the amount by the police as also the registration of the police case and investigation consequent thereto is entirely mis-conceived and illegal. 10. Learned counsel appearing on bshalf of the Bank respondent has stated that, as a matter of fact the petitioner has evaded and avoided to make payments and had defaulted and that being so he has committed criminal breach of trust and rightly the First Information Report had been lodged and the case had been registered. 11. On careful consideration of the entire facts ane circumstances of the case I find sufficient force in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. Should ppear that at the time of taking loan the petitioner had executed an agreement with the Bank respondent for paying back the loan with interest in 39 Smelts In spite of the fact that the vehicle had been hypothecated to the Bank the ownership regarding minibus was with the petitioner and thus he happened to be the owner of the bus in accordance with the provisions of the motor Vehicles Act and also the route permit had been granted for the Bus in the name of the petitioner. 12. Taking into consideration the facts involved in this case and looking to the First Information Report, I have no hesitation in saying that no offence has been made out whatsoever resulting into penal consequences much less and offence under Sec.406 of the Indian Penal Code. 12. Taking into consideration the facts involved in this case and looking to the First Information Report, I have no hesitation in saying that no offence has been made out whatsoever resulting into penal consequences much less and offence under Sec.406 of the Indian Penal Code. It would appear tha tne only liability on the part of the petitioner was to return back them amount of loan in instalments and if there has occurred any default whatsoever, the remedy left to the respondent Bank could be for recovery of the loan amount by a civil suit or by any other law available and provided for the recovery of such loan This will completely exclude any action whatsoever resultmg into prosecution under the Indian Penal Code or any other such enactment provided for penal consequences. Although the agreement has not been filed, out it has been seed by the learned counsel for the respondent Bank for perusal The different convenients laid down in the agreement speak of stipulation that the recovery would be made by means of a suit and that being so any action taken for criminal prosecution or recovery of the amount by the agency of police is entirely mis-conceived ; in addition there is no penal offence made put on the allesations made in the First Information Report. The question of criminal breach of trust does not raise at all because there has been no mis-appropriation of either of he bus or of the amount of loan in view of the fact that the loan amount has been utilised for the purpose of mini-bus and the mini-bus in question stood in the name of the petitioner as being the owner. 13. Seizure by the police, as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code) is under certain definite circumstances. 13. Seizure by the police, as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code) is under certain definite circumstances. Sec.94 (1) (c) of the Code read as follows : "94 Search of place suspected to contain stolen property, forged docu ments ere.- (1) If a District Magistrate, Sab-divisional Magistrate or Magistrate of the first class, upon information and after such inquiry as he thinks necessary, has reason to believe that any place is used for the deposit or sale or stolen property, or for the deposit, sale or production of any objectionable artictle to Which this section applies or that any such place he may by warrant authorise any police officer above the rank of a constable (c) to take possession of any property or article therein found which he reasonably suspects to be stolen property or objectionable article to which this section applies. " The another provision for seizure is under Sec.102 of the Code. Section 402 (1) of the Code reads as follows : "any police officer may seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found circumstances which create suspicion of any offence. " Therefore, as provided in Sections 94 and 102 (I) of the Code any article or property can be seized by the police only when it happened to be the stolen property, objectionable article to which Sec.94 of the Code is applicable suspected to have been stolen or having strong suspicion of the commission of any offence. Offence will only relate to the offence in the Penal Code or any other law resulting into penal consequences. 14 None of the conditions warranting any action whatsoever either under Sec.94 or 102 of the Code is availabe and that being so any requestion jo the First Information Report by the respondent Bank for the seizure of the vehicle cannot be said to be in accordance with law. 15. Sections 156 and 157 of the Code makes it clear that investigation by any police officer is permissible when an information is received or otherwise with regard to commission of any cognizable case. 15. Sections 156 and 157 of the Code makes it clear that investigation by any police officer is permissible when an information is received or otherwise with regard to commission of any cognizable case. That being so, in view of the discussions made above that no offence or any occassion for any case has been made out in the First Information Report, the question of investigation o i the basis of such First Information Report and the case instituted thereon does not arise at all. Thus, there being no case made out any question of seizure of the vehicle does not arise at all. Similarly, any request for recovery of the amount by the agency of the police officer, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is wholly misconceived and illegal. 16. In any view of the matter, the institution of criminal case and investigation on the basis of the First Information Report aforesaid is not in accordance with law and is fit to be quashed. 17. In the result, the application is allowed, the impuged First Information report, institution of Nawadah P. S. Case No.0190 of 1983 dated 30-6-1983 and also the investigation thereto is hereby quashed. Application allowed.