JUDGEMENT 1. On 4-1-1988 the Opposite party filed a complaint petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate at Gauhati against the proprietor of M/s. Sweta Auto Agency and 4 other unnamed persons under S.329/506/34 IPC. In the petition it was inter alia alleged that on 30-12-1987 proprietor of the M/s. Sweta Auto Agency along with 4 other persons demanded the keys of the vehicle No. AMZ-7881 from the Handyman of the vehicle and on his pleading of ignorance about the keys, the above person broke open the box of the vehicle where keys and money were kept and forcibly took away the vehicle. The learned Trial Court by orders dt. 4-1-1988 and 18-1-1988 issued summons under S.379 I.P.C. against the accused persons and also a search warrant for recovery of the vehicle. Police seized the vehicle and released it in favour of the complainant, Opposite party herein. Being aggrieved, the petitioner who is the owner of the M/s. Sweta Auto Agency has filed the present petition for quashing the Criminal Proceeding No. 2C of 1988 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Guahati and which was registered on the basis of the above complaint petition. The petitioner has further prayed also for quashing the orders by a separate petition which has been registered as Misc. Case and prayed for a direction to the Police to take back the Vehicle from the Opposite Party herein and gives it to the 'jimma' of the present petitioner. 2. In the petition main ground taken is that the vehicle in question was given on hire to the Opposite party on an agreement being executed between the parties. The said agreement is at Annexure-1. According to the Petitioner the Opposite party was to pay the entire amount in 35 monthly installments @ Rs. 5000/- and odd and the Opposite party hopelessly and miserably failed to pay the amount timely and after paying 14 installments after about a year of becoming due completely stopped payment of installments. It has been stated in the petition that as the Opposite party failed to pay the amount as per Cl.5 of the Agreement, the petitioner took the vehicle into his custody and this fact was duly intimated to the opposite party and the police. It has been stated in the petition that as the Opposite party failed to pay the amount as per Cl.5 of the Agreement, the petitioner took the vehicle into his custody and this fact was duly intimated to the opposite party and the police. It has been stated that by suppressing the fact in the complaint petition (Annexure IV to the petition) that the vehicle was taken on hire, the opposite party got the vehicle seized by the police. Hence the present petition for quashing the proceeding by invoking inherent powers of this Court under S.482 Cr. P.C. 3. A preliminary point has been raised on behalf of the opposite party that the petitioner has no locus standi as he was not the accused in the Criminal proceeding. In the complaint petition one Gouri Sankar Jalan has been shown as a proprietor of the M/s. Sweta Auto Agency whereas the present petitioner Subash Ch. Betala has described himself as a proprietor of the Sweta Agency. From the reading of the complaint petition it is clear that the complaint was filed against the proprietor of the Sweta Auto Agency. Mr. Sahewalla, learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the present petitioner is the owner of the Sweta Auto Agency and not Gouri Sankar Jalan, who is only a landlord of the present petitioner. It is clear from the complaint petition that accused was the proprietor of the said Auto Agency and as the present petitioner is the proprietor, the said complaint petition was directed against him and as such he has locus standi to file the present petition. 4. The learned Counsel for the Opposite party has contended that this is not a fit case for invoking the inherent power of the Court under S.482 Cr. P.C. and in support he has placed reliance on decisions of the Apex Court. 5. In Hareram Satpathy v. Tikaram Agarwalla, AIR 1978 SC 1568 : (1978 Cri LJ 1687), it was held that the scope of Revisional power of the High Court is very limited and the Court cannot launch on a detailed and meticulous examination of the case on merits and set aside the order of the Magistrate directing issue of process against certain persons. In P. Vijayapal Reddy v. The State, AIR 1978 SC 1590 : (1978 Cri LJ 1702), it was held that the inherent power of the Court can be invoked and exercised only when the facts alleged in the complaint if they are accepted to be correct at their face value, do not make out an offence with which the accused is charged. In Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 47 : (1978 Cri LJ 165), the Apex Court laid down three principles for exercising the inherent power by the High Court, namely, the power is not to be resorted to if there is a specific provisions in the Cr. P.C., that it should be exercised very sparingly to prevent abuse of process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice and that it should not be exercised as against the express bar of law and engrafted in any other provision of Cr. P.C. 6. There is no dispute regarding the power of the High Court for exercising its inherent power. The High Court cannot appreciate or meticulously examine the record for this purpose and that such power can be exercised if there is any abuse of process of law or otherwise to secure ends of justice. 7. In Shri Ved Prakash Goel v. Sri P. Bania 1988 (1) G.L.J. 87 the Division Bench of this Court held that abuse of process is the malicious and improper use of some regular legal proceeding to obtain some advantage over an opponent and that abuse of process is not confined to causing of a process to issue but also includes the use of the process for a purpose for which it is not legitimately meant. 8. In Jagadeesan v. State of Karnataka, 1978 Cr LJ 1546, the Karnataka High Court considered a case where as per hire purchase agreement between A and B, A (the financer) purchased the Car in question for giving it on hire to B and then handed over possession of the very car to B as hirer on certain conditions. The learned single Bench held that the learned Magistrate ought to have, while exercising his power u/s. 457 Cr. P.C., directed the vehicle to be returned to the possession of A. 9. The learned single Bench held that the learned Magistrate ought to have, while exercising his power u/s. 457 Cr. P.C., directed the vehicle to be returned to the possession of A. 9. In the case in hand, the vehicle in question was given to the opposite party by the petitioner under Hire Purchase Agreement (Annexure 1 to the petition) and under the said agreement the petitioner had the option to terminate the Agreement for a non-payment of monthly installment and take possession of the vehicle. This important fact was suppressed by the opposite party in the complaint petition and thereby abused the process of the Court. In the petition, it has been specifically stated on oath that the petitioner got possession of the vehicle through his agent from the opposite party on 30-12-1987 and this fact was duly communicated to the Police and also to the opposite party; the Opposite Party was further given 15 days' time to take re-possession of the vehicle by clearing the dues within 15 days. This statement has not been denied before this Court. 10. Thus from the fact of the record and without meticulous examination of the case on merit, I am of the opinion that by suppressing the fact before the learned Trial Court that the vehicle in question was given on hire the opposite party obtained improperly the charge warrant for the recovery of the vehicle and thereby abused the process of the Court. By doing so the Opposite party has caused injustice to the present petitioner and as such, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case for invoking the inherent power of this Court. 11. In the result, the Criminal proceeding registered as Case No. 2C of 1988 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gauhati, is quashed and consequently the orders dt. 4-1-1988 and 18-1-1988 are set aside. Officer-in-Charge of Bharalumukh Police Station shall hand over the possession of the vehicle to the petitioner. The rule is made absolute. The present petition and the connected Misc. case are disposed of. Rule made absolute.