Judgment M.Y.Eqbal, J. 1. The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482, Cr PC for quashing the entire criminal prosecution being Mandu P.S. case No. 177 (6) 97 pursuant to the complaint case No. 110/97/133/97 under Sections 363, 367, 381, 379 and 120-B of the Indian East Cr C31 Penal Code, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh. 2. It appears that opposite party No. 2, the complainant initially filed a complaint case No. 133/97 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh against the petitioners accused persons which was subsequently forwarded to the officer incharge of Mandu Police Station, for investigation under Section 156(3), Cr PC. The police, thereafter registered the same as Mandu P.S. case No. 177(6)97 under the aforesaid sections of the Penal Code. 3. The case of the complainant is that one truck bearing registration No. BR 13G-8585 was financed to his son under hire purchase agreement by M/s. Manas Credit Ltd., a sister concern of M/s. Bhasker Credit Ltd., which ultimately amalgamated in the said Bhasker Credit Ltd. It was alleged that instead of Rs. 3,82,100.00 payable under the hire purchase agreement an amount of Rs. 4,17,021.00 has already been paid to the aforesaid financier including the amount of Rs. 1,20,976.00 which was deposited by the complainant for financing the vehicle to one Tarik Hussain which was latter requested by the complainant to be adjusted in the account of financing of the aforesaid vehicle. It is further alleged that inspite of the aforesaid payment the petitioners did not issue no objection certificate and took possession of the truck on 10.6.97 from the driver of the truck at the point of revolver and also snatched away Rs. 11,000/- from the driver. It is alleged that the petitioners are, therefore, guilty of the offence under the aforementioned sections of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Mr. D.N. Sinha learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners assailed the instant criminal prosecution of the petitioners as being highly mala fide, entirely false and concocted and filed for the purpose to compel the petitioners to issue no objection certificate. 4. Mr. D.N. Sinha learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners assailed the instant criminal prosecution of the petitioners as being highly mala fide, entirely false and concocted and filed for the purpose to compel the petitioners to issue no objection certificate. Learned counsel firstly drew my attention to a Xerox copy of the complaint petition which has been annexed as annexure 1 to this petition and submitted that the complaint petition has not even been signed by the complainant and although there is an endorsement of the Chief Judicial Magistrate on the first page of the complaint petition to the effect that he had seen the same on 21.6.97 but from the last page of the complaint petition it will appear that the complaint petition was forwarded to the police for investigation on 13.6.97. Learned counsel then submitted that the vehicle was financed to one Md. Bari and not to the complainant under the hire purchase agreement indicating the instalments to be paid and there was no any contract between the complainant and the petitioners. Learned counsel further submitted that when the hire purchaser defaulted in payment of the instalment, a title suit being T.S. No. 1271/96 was filed before the City Civil Court, Calcutta for possession of the vehicle by appointing a receiver but the hire purchaser did not appear in spite of the notice and the Civil Court then passed an order for appointment of receiver and authorised him to take possession of the vehicle. Learned counsel then submitted that the vehicle as seized by the authorised agent of the receiver under a legal order passed by the Civil Court, Calcutta and due information was sent to the officer incharge, Kuju police station and the S.P. Hazaribagh. In support of his submission learned counsel has drawn my attention to the Hire Purchase Agreement, order passed by the City Civil Court, Calcutta to show that a false and frivolous case has been instituted by the complainant which will amount to abuse of the process of the Court. 5. It is well settled that judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression or needless harassment. 5. It is well settled that judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression or needless harassment. The Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all the relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process lest it would be an instrument in the hands of the private complainant as vendatta to harass persons needlessly. It is equally well settled that while exercising powers under Section 482, Cr PC in the matter of quashing the complaint or the FIR this Court is not supposed to meteculously examine the documents produced by the accused persons in their defence by annexing it with the said petition. 6. In the instant case it appears that in the complaint petition itself the complainant sought leave of the Court to produce the relevant documents of deposit of excess amount acknowledged by M/s. Bhasker Credit Ltd., but all those documents have not been produced before the Court along with the complaint petition. 7. In the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is not debarred at least from perusing the admitted documents and the public documents to find out prima facie reliability of the allegations made in the complaint petition. In the instant case, admittedly, the complainant is not a party to the Hire Purchase Agreement and the vehicle was not purchased by him. It is Md. Bari, who entered into a hire purchase agreement for purchasing the vehicle in question. There is nothing in the complaint petition to show that the vehicle was purchased by the complainant in the name of his son under . Hire Purchase Agreement, rather in the last page of the complaint petition it is written that the complaint has been filed on behalf of the complainant. The complainant has not even signed the complaint petition. 8. From perusal of the order passed by the City Civil Court, Calcutta it appears that the suit was instituted against Abdul Bari, and in that case application was moved for appointment of receiver and issue of injunction and by order, dated 6.5.1996 the receiver was appointed and a writ was issued to the receiver for taking possession of the vehicle. Admittedly, complaint case was filed after order was passed by the City Civil Court, Calcutta. Admittedly, complaint case was filed after order was passed by the City Civil Court, Calcutta. On the face of this, it is manifestly clear that the complaint case was filed by the complainant in order to harass the petitioners and compel them to come to settlement and issue no objection certificate. I am, therefore, of the view that continuance of the criminal prosecution against the petitioners will amount to serious abuse of the process of law particularly when, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, no criminal case could be made out against the petitioners. 9. For the reasons aforesaid this application is allowed and the entire criminal prosecution initiated against the petitioners being Mandu P.S. case No. 177(6)97 arising out of complaint case No. 110/97 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh is quashed.