Judgment B. N. Agrawal, J. 1. - This writ application has been filed for quashing the police investigation in Sasaram (Town) Agrer Police Station Case no.575/91 dated 18-11-1991 and consequent prosecution of the petitioners, which is pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram. 2. Respondent No.5, Ramjee Singh, submitted a written report before the office-in-charge of Agrer Police Station on the basis of which the aforesaid case was registered at the said police station for prosecution of the petitioners under Sections 408, 428, 468, 469 and 471 of the Penal Code. 3. Case of the prosecution, in short, is that Bus No. B E. Z 258, was unregistered in the name of the informant, respondent No.5. Petitioner nos.1 and 2 are partners of the firm, M/s Commercial Finance Corporation and petitioner No.3 is its representative. It is said that on 2-2-1991 the accused persons approached the informant and requested him tb dehver the aforesaid vehicle for two days for the use of their family membirrs. The informant acceded to the request and delivered the vehicle to the accused persons but they did not return the vehicle Later on 11-4-1991 when the informant mad petitioner No.1 he was told that the ownership of the vehicle was transferred in the name of petitioner No.1 by the concerned District Transport Officer. The informant thereafter approached the District Transport Officer requesting him to cancel the order of transfer as upon false paper produced by petitioner No.1 the transfer order was obtained. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid report the police after registering the case wanted to proceed with the investigation which necessitated filing of the present writ application in which while admitting the writ application the police investigation was stayed, as such, the investigation could not proceed further. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in support of the writ application contended that the first information report does not disclose any offence whatsoever much less congnizable one. It has been submitted that in the present case the informant has raised a purely civil dispute for which the process of the Criminal Court should not be allowed to be abused. It has been also submitted that in accordance with the agreement the matter has been already referred to arbitration. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the informant. It has been also submitted that in accordance with the agreement the matter has been already referred to arbitration. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the informant. From the statements made in the first information report as well as the counter-affidavit, it appears that undisputedly, the informant was a hirer and there was a hire purchase agreement between the informant and m/s Commercial Finance Corporation whose partners are petitioner nos.1 and 2. Even according to the counter-affidavit there was some default on the part of the hirer in making payment of instalment. Under the terms of hire purchase agreejnent upon failure to pay instalment the financer had every right to take possession of the vehicle. The position of the hirer, according to the agreement, was that of a bailee only and the financer was its owner. If Partners of the financer, as alleged in the written report, taken possession of the vehicle in question for default in making payment of instalment, it cannot be said that they have committed any offence whatsoever. From the facts stated above, it becomes plain that the dispute raised by the informant is purely of civil nature. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in support of his submissions place reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of trilok Singh and others V/s. Satya Deo Tripathi, AIR 1979 SC 850 , wherein also it was a case of hire purchase agreement and in similar circumstances allahabad High Court refused to quash the prosecution in exercise of powers under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But when the matter was taken to the Apex Court the appeal was allowed and criminal prosecution of the accused was quashed on the ground that the dispute raised was of civil nature for which the process of the Criminal court could not be abused. The present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant contended that in any view of the matter, accused persons have committed an offence as after producing false papers they got the vehicle transferred in their names. According to the terms of hire purchase agreement, the financer was the owner and the position of the hirer was that of a bailee only. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant contended that in any view of the matter, accused persons have committed an offence as after producing false papers they got the vehicle transferred in their names. According to the terms of hire purchase agreement, the financer was the owner and the position of the hirer was that of a bailee only. If a financer as an owner of the vehicle has got his name transferred. I do not find that by that any offence has been committed. Moreover, by the said Act of transfer, the informant has not sufferred in any way as even accordingly to the prosecuting the order of transfer upon being moved by the informant was cancelled. 8. In view of the foregoing discussions, I am clearly of the view that the first information report does not disclose any offence whatsoever and the informant has raised a purely civil dispute for which the process of Criminal Court cannot be allowed to be abused, therefore, it would be just and expedient to quash the prosecution of the petitioners. 9. In the result, this writ application is allowed, the police investigation in Sasaram (Town) Agrer Police Station Case No.575/91 dated 18-11-1991 and consequent prosecution of the petitioners pending in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram are hereby quashed. Writ application allowed.