JUDGMENT : S.C. Datta, J. - This is an application u/s 401 read with Section 482 Cr. P.C., praying for setting aside order dated 2-11-93 passed by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khurda taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 468 and 471, I.P. C. against the Petitioner and another. The Petitioner has also prayed for quashing the order dated 18-2-1994 whereby the learned Magistrate rejected the prayer of the Petitioner to reconsider the order dated 2-11-93 taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 468 and 471, I.P. C.. 2. The fact of the case may be shortly stated as follows. The Petitioner is the Managing Director of M/s. United Credit Limited (for short 'the creditor') and carries on bussiness of lease financing and hire purchase and is a reputed financier in the Country. The said M/s. United Credit Limited has financed for a Canter Bus bearing Registration No. OR-05-8591 under a hire purchase agreement executed between M/s. United Credit Limited and opposite party No. 1 in accordance with the term and conditions contained in the said agreement. As per the hire purchase agreement. M/s. United Credit Limited are the owners and the opposite party No. 1 is the hirer of the said vehicle. It was stipulated in the agreement that opposite party No. 1 shall pay monthly instalment of Rs. 14,606/- by 25th of every month. The entire dues with interest and other charges were required to be liquidated by 30 monthly instalments. The parties have agreed that if any monthly hire charges or part thereof or any other amount due against the hirer is in arrears and left unpaid for a period of seven days after the date when it becomes payable. The owner may with or without metion to the hirer terminte the contract of hiring and forthwith take possession of the vehicle. There was an, arbitration agreement to the effect that all disputes arising out of the contract of hire or concerning the said bus shall be referred for arbitration. 3. In pursuance of the said agreement, opposite party No. 1 took the bus on hire from M/s. United Credit Limited, used the same as a stage-carriage and paid Rs. 14,600/- on 6-4-1992 by Demand Draft No. 801838 towards first instalment and defaulted in making payment of subsequent instalments. 3. In pursuance of the said agreement, opposite party No. 1 took the bus on hire from M/s. United Credit Limited, used the same as a stage-carriage and paid Rs. 14,600/- on 6-4-1992 by Demand Draft No. 801838 towards first instalment and defaulted in making payment of subsequent instalments. Thereupon, M/s. United Credit Limited called upon the opposite party No. 1 by a letter through their Advocate to pay all the dues but in spite of the service of the said letter, the opposite party No. 1 failed to pay the arrear instalments but paid a sum of Rs. 14,600/- only on 14-7-1993 by another demand draft. In the meantime, the creditor terminated the contract of hire purchase and moved an application before the City Civil Court Calcutta for appointment for a Receiver for taking possession of the said vehicle and the latter by order dated 11-3-1993, appointed a Receiver for taking possession of the vehicle. In accordance with the order of the City Civil Court at Calcutta, the Agent of the Receiver took possession of the said vehicle at Rasulgarh chhak after preparing necessary inventories in presence of and with the help of Mancheswar Police-station, Bhubaneswar. 4. On coming to know about the seizure of the vehicle,the opposite parties filed a complaint case bearing No. I.C.C. Case No. 142/93 under Sections 191, 192, 193, 463 and 464 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khurda against the present Petitioner and one P.S. Guru alleging that the said P.S. Guru had gone to the residence of the complainant Nos. 1 and 2 and attained their signatures on some blank papers stating that their signatures were necessary for giving delivery of the vehicle. The complainant Nos. 1 and 2 signed some documents in good faith. While they were plying the Bus the same was seized by the Inspector-in-charge, Mancheswar, P.S. Rasulgarh. The complainant alleged in the complaint petition that the said agreement is a forged one created to fraudalently obtain an order from the Calcutta Court by utilising the aforesaid forged documents. On the basis of the initial statement the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 468 and 471, I.P.C. against the Petitioner and one P.S. Guru and fixed 20th November, 1993 for appearance. 5. Being aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner moved an application u/s 482, Cr. P.C. in this Court. On the basis of the initial statement the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 468 and 471, I.P.C. against the Petitioner and one P.S. Guru and fixed 20th November, 1993 for appearance. 5. Being aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner moved an application u/s 482, Cr. P.C. in this Court. This Court by order dated 30th November, 1993 permitted the Petitioner to withdraw the application and to file a fresh petition before the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khurda to reconsider the question of issue of process against him. Pursuant thereto the Petitioner filed an application before the learned Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate to reconsider the question about taking of cognizance of the offence and has issued process against him. But the learned Magistrate by order dated 18-2-94 rejected the said petition on the ground that since one of the accused persons had not then appeared before him, the matter cannot be considered. 6. Being dissatisfied with the order of the learned Magistrate, the Petitioner has again moved this Court. According to the Petitioner the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance and to issue process against him inasmuch as the petition of complaint does not disclose the commission of any offence within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Court. It has been stated that the place of occurrence of the alleged offence as mentioned in paragraph 3 of the complaint petition is the office of M/s. Pattnaik Automobiles Pvt. Ltd, Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar, which is not within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of the learned S.DJ.M., Khurda. Moreover, the Bus in question was also seized at Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar, which is also not within the jurisdiction of the learned Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Khurda. It has been also contended that the petition of complaint (Annexure-5) and the initial deposition of the complainant do not disclose commission of any offence by the Petitioner. Even assuming that the allegations made in the complaint petition are true, the dispute between the parties if at all exists, is purely of a civil nature and initiation of a criminal proceeding is an abuse of process of the Court. Even assuming that the allegations made in the complaint petition are true, the dispute between the parties if at all exists, is purely of a civil nature and initiation of a criminal proceeding is an abuse of process of the Court. According to the Petitioner, the learned Court below ought to have applied judicial mind to the fact that the vehicle must have been financed on the basis of some terms, settled between the parties and the finance company will never finance a vehicle without executing any document with settled terms and conditions. It has been contended that nowhere in the complaint petition or in the initial deposition the complainant has mentioned that the Petitioner has obtained any signature from the complainants or the Petitioner has forged any document. Accordingly the Petitioner prays for quashing the impugned order dated 2-11-1993 and subsequent order dated 18-2-1994 rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner to reconsider the earlier order taking cognizance of the offence. 7. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. It is not disputed that the present Petitioner is a resident of Calcutta and he is Managing Director of M/s. United Credit Limited which is engaged in the business of lease financing and hire purchase. It is also not disputed that the complainant took delivery of the disputed vehicle from M/s. Patnaik Automobile Private Limited who has arranged for the finance from the United Credit Limited on 10-11-1991. In his initial statement, the complainant has clearly stated that he purchased a Canter Bus bearing Registration No. OR-05-8591 in 1991. He admits that the United Credit Limited of Calcutta has supplied money to him. His allegation is that while financing him for the purpose of purchasing the said vehicle the accused P.S. Guru has taken his signature on three blank papers. Nowhere he has stated in the complaint petition as well as in the initial statement that the present Petitioner has obtained his signature on three blank papers. Annexure-l to the present petition is the contract of Hire. It is a printed form which has been filled-up. It is manifestly clear that this agreement was executed at Calcutta on 11-12-1991 between the complainant Rasmi Ranjan Mohapatra and the United Credit Limited. The complainant Rasmi Ranjan Mohapatra has signed at the bottom of this agreement and the schedules attached to it. It is a printed form which has been filled-up. It is manifestly clear that this agreement was executed at Calcutta on 11-12-1991 between the complainant Rasmi Ranjan Mohapatra and the United Credit Limited. The complainant Rasmi Ranjan Mohapatra has signed at the bottom of this agreement and the schedules attached to it. Neither of the papers can be said to be blank but they are all printed. The complainant himself admits that he had obtained finance from the United Credit Limited. He states that he is the Head-Clerk in the Mahanadi Chitrotpala Project No. III Division. It is difficult to believe that he would sign some blank papers in favour of the United Credit Limited. It is equally unbelievable that M/s. United Credit Limited would make available the finance for purchase of the Bus without obtaining any document therefor from the complainant. In column 3, it has been alleged that one P.S. Guru, Senior Executive Sales of M/s. Patnaik Automobile Private Limited has came to his residence at Khurda and obtained their signature on some blank papers and they had signed it on good faith. In the initial statement it has been alleged that the accused persons had forged a document by using blank paper signed by him and thereby managed to seize the bus by using that forged document in the Court at Calcutta. According to the present Petitioner, the complainant had meted upon the agreement and said his first instalment of the loan by demand draft dated 6-4-1992 for a sum of Rs. 14,600/-. Subsequently, the complainant paid another instalment by a demand draft dated 14-7-1993 after the present Petitioner issued notice upon him through their lawyer. It is therefore, pre-posterous to tell that the complainant had obtained the loan without signing any document there for in favour of the present Petitioner. As already indicated, it becomes difficult to believe that the Petitioner-Company would finance a huge amount without obtaining any document there for from the complainant. The absurdity of the case of the complainant is quite clear and it means that the learned Magistrate has not considered the matter in proper perspective. 8. As already indicated, it becomes difficult to believe that the Petitioner-Company would finance a huge amount without obtaining any document there for from the complainant. The absurdity of the case of the complainant is quite clear and it means that the learned Magistrate has not considered the matter in proper perspective. 8. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, the dispute between the parties is essentially a dispute of civil nature and that a bare reading of the complaint petition and the initial deposition, does not disclose commission of any offence by the Petitioner and the proceeding initiated is an abuse of the process of the Court requiring interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the complainant has referred to a case reported in Sardar Trilok Singh and Others Vs. Satya Deo Tripathi. It appears that the fact of the present case is quite similar to that in the case cited at the Bar. On the facts of that case, the Apex Court held that the dispute raised by the Respondent is purely of civil nature. Even assuming the facts stated by him to be substantially correct, money must have been advanced to him on the basis of taxes settled between the parties. On a scrutiny of the facts involved in the present case, I am of the view that it is a case where no process ought to have been directed to be issued against the present Petitioner. Therefore, in my opinion, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the criminal prosecution deserves to be quashed which I hereby do. Since the order for quashing of the proceeding as against the present Petitioner is passed, the question of want of jurisdiction of the trial court need not in my view be gone into. 9. In the result, the application is allowed, the orders passed by the learned Magistrate dated 2-11-93 and 18-1-1994 are set aside and the criminal proceeding so far as the present Petitioner is concerned is quashed. The Criminal Misc. case is disposed of accordingly. Crl. Misc. Case disposed of. Final Result : Allowed