Judgment 1. These two cases have been heard together as they arise out of the same criminal prosecution against the accused persons including cognizance been taken under section 406/420 I.P C. The opposite party no. 2 Narmadeshwar Mishra tiled a complaint case No. 816/95 (Cr. No. 594/96) before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj which was afterwards transferred to the file of Sri S. K. Jha, Judicial Magistrate. The admitted position remains that on the basis of an agreement the informant purchased on hire purchase system a truck bearing No. BR 28/3334 from B.C.L. Finance Service having its registered office in Calcutta of which the different petitioners happened to be the office bearers. As per the agreement the truck in question was sold for a consideration of 2,40,000 out of which Rs. 78,000/- have been paid and it was agreed upon that the balance amount shall be paid in 23 equal instalments henceforth. According to the opposite party no. 2 inform (sic) a sum of Rs. 1,66,477 have been paid and for some differences the rest instalments could not be paid in time then the vehicle in question had been seized by the petitioner causing irreparable loss to the informant and in the last paragraph of the complaint petition it has further been stated that afterwards the whole amount of instal ments have been paid towards full satis-faction of the consideration amount but the said vehicle has not been released. Hence, the prosecution case. 2. After examining the complainant on oath the complainant was asked to produce his witnesses for holding an enquiry under section 202 Cr. PC. and after holding of such enquiry and the statements of some of the witnesses cognizance has been taken under sections 406/420/120 of the Indian Penal Code against all the petitioners. 3. The only point involved in this petition filed under section 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order of cognizance is that no criminal liability can be fastened against the petitioners, as even if there is any violation of the terms and conditions of the contract then only civil liability can be there against the -petitioners. It has further been stated that as per the agreement itself any dispute arising between the parties should be referred to an arbitrator and that too having the jurisdiction within the City Civil Court in Calcutta. It has further been stated that as per the agreement itself any dispute arising between the parties should be referred to an arbitrator and that too having the jurisdiction within the City Civil Court in Calcutta. On the face of it, it appears that the learned Magistrate has committed error of law in not construing the ingredients properly of section 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code while taking cognizance against the petitioners. According to the informant some delay was there in payment of the instalments and in the meantime the vehicle had been seized although the balance amount and instalments have been paid later on and even then no return has been made from the side of the petitioners of the vehicle then as per the terms of the agreement itself the opposite party no. 2 could have referred the matter either to the Arbitrator or by filing a petition before the Judge of the City Civil Court as per the Arbitration Act but in no case there can be criminal prosecution under section 406/420 I.P.C. This has now become the settled principle of law that in such type of cases criminal liability cannot be fastened with the contracting parties. A reference has been made in the case of Trilok Singh vs. Sayad Deo Tripathi as decided by the Apex Court as reported in 1979 Supreme Court Page 850 wherein in similar situation and circumstances of the case of hire purchase it was held that criminal prosecution is- nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. Such a decision of the Court has been followed by a catena of decisions by different High Courts including that of the Patna High Court. 4. Considering such principle of law as mentioned above the two petitions are hereby allowed and the criminal prosecution arising out of Complaint Case No. 816/95 (Tr. No. 594/96) now pending before Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gopalganj is hereby quashed.