Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code Criminal Procedure has been filed by the abovenamed petitioner for quashing the entire criminal proceedings together with the order of cognizance taken under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code in Complaint Case No. 507 of 1996 by Shri P.K. Saran, Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. 2. The Opposite party No. 2 filed the abovementioned Complaint case on the following facts : That on 10.11.1995, Mini Truck No. BPY-4116 belonging to the complaint and registered in the name of his owner Ajit Kumar Singh was seized by Lalpur police on the strength of an order passed by the Chief Judge, City Court. Calcutta in Misc. Case No. 1839 of 1995 authorising the Receivers agent Sheo Shankar Prasad to received the same. The complainant on enquiry could learn that the petitioner i.e. accused No. 1 had financed a truck bearing No. BIN 9465 to the other accused who defaulted in payment of instalments and then the petitioner i.e. the accused No. 1 filed Arbitration Suit in Calcutta and the abovementioned Misc. Case was registered there and the Chief Judge of Calcutta. City Civil Court appointed Rajyashri Basu. Advocate. Calcutta as a Receiver and as per the direction of the Receiver the vehicle No. BPY- 4116 was seized by Lalpur Police at the instance of Shiv Shankar Sao, the appointed attorney of the Receiver. According to the complainant, he made a petition before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi regarding release of the vehicle as there was no payment due against the vehicle and on hearing the complainant the vehicle was released in the favour. But, according to the complainant, a conspiracy was made by the petitioner alongwith other co-accused regarding seizure of the vehicle No. BPY- 4116 belonging to the complainant, although he was neither a guarantor nor in any way connected with the other vehicle for which finance was made by the petitioner to the other accused person and hence the complaint petition was filed. 3. It appears that some witnesses have been examined for and on behalf of the complainant and one accused No. 4 also appeared and filed petition and then after hearing both the parties, cognizance was taken against the petitioner alongwith other co-accused persons, hence this petition under Section 482, Cr PC. 4. According to Mr. 3. It appears that some witnesses have been examined for and on behalf of the complainant and one accused No. 4 also appeared and filed petition and then after hearing both the parties, cognizance was taken against the petitioner alongwith other co-accused persons, hence this petition under Section 482, Cr PC. 4. According to Mr. D.N. Sinha, the contents of the compliant do not constitute any offence against the petitioner. Moreover, on the admission of the complainant the vehicle being registered in the name of his son, the complainant cannot be said to be an aggrieved party to come to the Court. His further contention is that when the petitioner brought into the notice of the Chief Judicial Magistrate after the vehicle was released in favour of the complainant all facts then the complainant become very much apprehensive that the release order procured by him on suppression of material facts would make him in embarrassing position and on such as a retaliation this false complaint has been filed. His further submission is that even if it is taken to be true that the complainant was not a guarantor and his vehicle has been seized by the order of a Court appointed receiver then any grievance complainant has got, he may raise it before the City Civil Court in Calcutta wherefrom the seizure order has been made. 5. On the other hand, Mr. J. Nath, appearing on behalf of the complainant-O.P. No. 2 has submitted that when cognizance has once been taken by the Court below on the materials on record, there is little scope to interfere with it by this Court at this stage. The petitioner can very well raise his grievance before the Court below. According to him. when the order of seizure as made by the City Civil Court. Calcutta at the instance of the appointed Receiver and when the vehicle has once been released by the C.J.M. Ranchi, then there is no scope of the complainant to go and move before the City Civil Court in Calcutta. 6. On the facts being stated in the complaint petition, it is clear that the vehicle in question was seized by the order of a Court in Calcutta and whether the petitioner took initiative or not in getting the vehicle seized, is a matter to be construed by the Court which had issued the seizure order. 6. On the facts being stated in the complaint petition, it is clear that the vehicle in question was seized by the order of a Court in Calcutta and whether the petitioner took initiative or not in getting the vehicle seized, is a matter to be construed by the Court which had issued the seizure order. There is no scope of making any complaint that too before a Criminal Court challenging such sort of seizure. Practically, in the complaint petition the seizure order has been challenged before the Criminal Court at Ranchi, when the matter is pending before the City Civil Court in Calcutta. The learned Magistrate, it appears has not at all construed the matter in its proper perspective. 7. Taking the worst view that the petitioner look initiative in getting the vehicle of the complainant or his son being seized for non payment of hire purchase instalments by the hirer, when the complainant was alleged to be a guarantor then also such grievances of the complainant could be raised very well before the City Civil Court in Calcutta, there cannot be any criminality being imposed on the petitioner at this stage until and unless, it could be found that the complainants name was wrongly been inserted as a guarantor and that can only be decided by the Arbitration Court where the matter is pending or by a competent Civil Court. There is no scope of interference by a Criminal Court intermidling in the affairs of a Civil Court. Moreover, the complainant seems to have come not with clean hands. The vehicle does not stand in his name on the date of filing of the complaint by his admission alone. Perhaps only to evade the fact of his being a guarantor he had transferred the vehicle in the name of his son Ajay and then Ajay got the vehicle released by suppression of all facts from the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Ranchi. When a person is coming with unclean hands and making allegation which do not constitute an offence on the face of it then the learned Court below ought not to have taken cognizance in the case. Ranchi. When a person is coming with unclean hands and making allegation which do not constitute an offence on the face of it then the learned Court below ought not to have taken cognizance in the case. Moreover, it entertained another co-accused to intervene before the cognizance being taken, but still cognizance was taken and the order of cognizance shows that the learned Magistrate either had not understood the contents of the complaint or had intentionally tried not to understand the factual aspect of the case as revealed from the complaint petition itself. When a vehicle has been ordered to be released by a Civil Court in a legal proceeding, there is no scope of a Criminal Court to interfere with it. The learned Magistrate ought to have rejected the complaint petition and asked the complainant to move his grievances before the City Civil Court in Calcutta. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that cognizance being taken in the case is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court and hence this Court in bound to interfere with the same. The petition is thus allowed. The entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner together with the order of cognizance is hereby set aside and quashed.