Judgment M.Y.Eqbal, J. 1. In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 14-11-1997 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in complaint case No. C/ 1-495/97 by which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and issued summons against the petitioners to stand trial under Sections 379, 403, 420, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. I have heard Mr. D.N. Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. P. Gangopadhyaya, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant-opposits party No. 2. 3. The complainant-opposite party No. 2 filed complaint against the petitioners alleging, inter alia, that he is the owner of truck bearing registration No. M.P. 23-DA-0417 which has been purchased by the complainant under hypothecation in favour of M/s. B.C.L. Finance Service Ltd. It is alleged that on 24-7-1997 all of a sudden without any information to the complainant, the accused-persons have stolen the said truck of the complainant along with a sum of Rs. 76,000/- and some other articles were also kept in the safe-box and cabin of the said truck. After coming to know of the said fact the complainant tried his best to search out his truck and lastly he met the accused-persons in their office and then the accused- persons admitted before the complainant that the said truck along with the aforesaid amount is lying in their custody and that will be adjusted agianst the instalments due and they will release the truck very soon. It is further alleged that the accused- persons informed the complainant that his truck is kept lying in the compound of Telco police station. It is therefore, alleged that the accused- persons, with dishonest intention, have stolen away the truck and the money of the complainant and by false assurance, they have kept the same and have misappropriated and converted the said sum to their own use in furtherance of common intention for wrongful loss to the complainant. 4. On the basis of the said allegations made in the complaint petition and the statement of the complainant recorded on solemn affirmation, the Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under the aforesaid sections, of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Mr. D.N. Sinha, learned Counsel has submitted that the allegation made in the complaint petition does not constitute an offence under any of the provisions of the Penal Code. 5. Mr. D.N. Sinha, learned Counsel has submitted that the allegation made in the complaint petition does not constitute an offence under any of the provisions of the Penal Code. Learned Counsel submitted that it is the admitted case of the complainant that the vehicle was purchased under Hire Purchase Agreement and the same was lying in the compound of Telco police station. Learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the statement of the complainant recorded on S.A. and submitted that the complainant himself has admitted that on the date of occurrence 5-6 instalments of Rs. 26,000/- each was not paid by him. Learned Counsel then submitted that because of nonpayment of the instalments for about 5-6 months, a proceeding before the Calcutta High Court was initiated and by the order of the High Court, a Receiver was appointed for taking possession of the vehicle. In support of that learned Counsel has drawn my attention to a copy of the order which is Annexure-2 to this petition. Learned Counsel further submitted that pursuant to the order of the High Court, the vehicle was seized by the police on 23-7-1997 and a seizure-list to that effect was prepared. 6. I find much force in the submission of the learned Counsel. From perusal of the complaint itself, it appears that the allegations made therein are false and fabricated. The absurdity will be evident from the fact that although the vehicle was seized on 23-7-1997 but in the complaint, it is alleged that the occurrence took place on 24-7-1997. It is, rather, surprising that although the occurrence took place either on 23-7-1997 or on 24-7-1997, the complainant lodged the complaint after three months i.e. on 6-10-1997. Although, while exercising power under Section 482, Cr PC in the matter of quashing a complaint of the order of cognizance, normally the court is not supposed to consider the case of the accused- persons in defence but at least in the instant case, I must not ignore the order of the Calcutta High Court which prima facie shows, that a Receiver was appointed for taking custody and possession of the vehicle and in furtherance of that, the vehicle was seized. 7. 7. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the totality of the allegations made in the complaint, Court was of the opinion that no case has been made out by the complainant for the prosecution of the petitioners under the aforesaid sections of the Penal Code. 8. For the reasons aforesaid, this application is allowed and the order of cognizance taken by the Magistrate in complaint case No. C/1-495/97 is quashed.