JUDGMENT : L. Mohapatra, J. - This application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed challenging the orders dated 16.11.98 and 24.6.2000 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Balasore, in ICC No. 380 of 1 997 as well as for quashing the said proceeding. By order dated 16.1 1.98 the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence committed u/s 379/34, Indian Penal Code against the Petitioners and by order dated 24.6.2000 the learned Magistrate has rejected the application filed on behalf of the Petitioners u/s 362, Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the order taking cognizance. 2. The case of the Petitioners is that Narahari Sahoo had entered into a lease agreement with M/s. Bee Pee Jay Holding Ltd. in the year 1994 for purchase of a truck. The said truck was purchased by the company and was leased out in favour of said Narahari Sahoo. Under the agreement Shri Sahoo was to pay the lease rental each month and as per the terms of the agreement also the R.C. book and insurance certificate were issued in favour of Shri Sahoo though the vehicle and been financed by the company. Since Shri Sahoo defaulted in making repayment, possession of the vehicle was taken in the year 1993 by the company. After taking possession of the vehicle by the company, Misc. Case No. 86 of 1993 was initiated in the City Civil Court, Calcutta, before the Chief Judge. On 5.5.93 the parties entered into a compromise and the Misc. Case was disposed of in terms of the compromise. As per the terms of the compromise the present opposite party stood as.surety for Narahari Sahoo and it was agreed that they would pay a further sum of Rs. 3,78,024/- to Bee Pee Jay Holdings. It was further agreed that Petitioner No. 2 would be the receiver in respect of the vehicle and would take possession of the vehicle personally or through authorised agent or through Police help if there is any default in payment of the instalments and shall be at liberty to sell the vehicle without any further order. Shortly after the compromise entered into there was default in payment of instalments to the tune of Rs. 31,860/ - and the surety opposite party managed to transfer the vehicle in his name without intimation the company or to the Court. Shortly after the compromise entered into there was default in payment of instalments to the tune of Rs. 31,860/ - and the surety opposite party managed to transfer the vehicle in his name without intimation the company or to the Court. Petitioner No. 2 who was appointed receiver under the agreement authorised Petitioner No. 1 as his attorney for taking possession of the vehicle from opposite party and with the help of the local police the vehicle was taken possession of on 22.4.94. Five years after such taking over possession, the Petitioners received summons from the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Balasore, in the aforesaid Complaint Case. 3. Miss S. Ratho learned Counsel appearing for Petitioners, submitted that the vehicle had been financed under an agreement which provided for taking over possession by the financier in case of default and accordingly the financier had once taken over possession of the vehicle. The matter was compromised in a Court of law and the complainant stood as surety and it was further agreed that Petitioner No. 2 would act as receiver in respect of the vehicle and shall be entitled to take possession of the same case of default. Admittedly since there was default in payment of instalments, Petitioner No. 2 engaged Petitioner No. 1 as his attorney to take over possession of the vehicle. According to Miss Rath the disputes are purely of civil nature and the criminal proceeding initiated against the Petitioners amounts to abuse of process of Court and deserves to be quashed. 4. In spite of notice no one has appeared for the complainant opposite party. 5. Reliance is placed on a decision of the apex Court reported in Sardar Trilok Singh and Others Vs. Satya Deo Tripathi, The facts before the apex Court in the said decision are that the hire purchase agreement was entered into between the receiver and the finance Corporation, Appellant before the apex Court., The loan was repayable in monthly instalments. According to the agreement on default of anyone instalment, the financier had the right to terminate the hire purchase agreement even without notice and seize the truck. The complainant's case was that only a blank form was got signed by him and that on default of the third instalment the truck was forcibly seized and removed by the Appellants. According to the agreement on default of anyone instalment, the financier had the right to terminate the hire purchase agreement even without notice and seize the truck. The complainant's case was that only a blank form was got signed by him and that on default of the third instalment the truck was forcibly seized and removed by the Appellants. On a complaint being filed the learned Magistrate after inquiry directed issue of summons. The order of the learned Magistrate directing issue of summons was challenged before the Allahabad High Court u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure which was dismissed and the matter went to the Apex Court. The apex Court held that the proceeding initiated was clearly an abuse of process of the Court. It was not a case where any process ought to have been directed to be issued against the Appellants. The dispute raised by he Respondent was purely of civil nature, even accepting the facts alleged by him to be substantially correct. Reliance is also placed on a decision reported in 1987 (1) Cri 173: Bhivraj and Anr. v. Rabindra and Anr. A similar view was also taken by the Bombay High Court in the said decision. A similar view has also been taken by Gauhati High Court in the case of Subash Chandra Betala Vs. Dwijen Chandra Kalita, . 6. From the facts of the present case also it appears that all the rights and liabilities of the parties flow from the hire purchase agreement as well as the terms of the compromise entered into in the year 1993. Therefore, any dispute arising out of the agreement is a case of civil nature and no criminal liability can be attributed. 7. Following the aforesaid decisions I hold that continuance of the proceeding before he trial Court shall amount to abuse of process of Court and accordingly I quash I.C.C. No. 380 of 1997 pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Balasore but not giving of such notice will not have any invalidating effect on the order which may be made by the Magistrate on a consideration of the report." 8. In the above view of the matter learned single judge has done wrong to the Appellant when he closed the door of the High Court before him by saying that the High Court as going to consider whether the criminal proceedings initiated at his behest should be quashed completely and that the complainant would not be heard at all even if he wants to be heard. 9. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order. The petition filed by the Respondents for quashing the criminal proceedings can now be disposed of by the High Court after affording a reasonable opportunity to this Appellant also to be heard in the matter. 10. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.