ORDER Deoki Nandan Prasad, J. 1. Both the writ petitions were heard together as they are arising out of the same order and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. These writ applications have been filed for quashing the order dated 4.6.2002 passed in Cr. Rev. No. 31 of 2001, whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih dismissed the revision application for release of the vehicle bearing registration No. BR-20P-0505 in favour of the petitioner Jai Kumar Prasad Roy in connection with Jamua P.S. Case No. 118/2001. 3. The short facts giving rise to these writ petitions are that one Shri Raj Kishore Roy Akela, respondent No. 3 lodged an FIR alleging therein that Bus bearing registration No. BR-20P-0505 was purchased by him which was financed by M/s. Suresh Automobiles, Chas, petitioner of W.P. (Cr.) No., 190 of 2002 and the petitioner Jai Kumar Prasad Roy stood as guarantor before the Financier. On 28.6.2001 the informant had gone to Ranchi due to some urgent work and in his absence the brother of Jai Kumar Prasad Roy, namely, Bhudev Roy and the owner of Suresh Automobiles came to his house and asked to bring the Bus for necessary repairing and the said vehicle was taken away by those persons. On 4.7.2001 when he returned from Ranchi then he came to know about taking away the Bus and thereafter he went to Chas to bring the vehicle on 5.7.2001. Thereafter he came to know that the said vehicle has been transferred on the basis of forge affidavit and by he forge signature. The name of the vehicle was also changed. It is further alleged that the informant had spent Rs. 5 lacks and the total value of the vehicle was about Rs. 9 lacs and he had only taken Rs. 3 lacs from Financier as well as he had paid Rs. 4 lacs to the Financier. Accordingly, the FIR was lodged under Sections 409, 467, 468, 412, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 4. 5 lacks and the total value of the vehicle was about Rs. 9 lacs and he had only taken Rs. 3 lacs from Financier as well as he had paid Rs. 4 lacs to the Financier. Accordingly, the FIR was lodged under Sections 409, 467, 468, 412, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The petitioner, Jai Kumar Prasad Roy had filed a petition before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih to release the vehicle which was refused and it was held by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate that it is difficult to come to the conclusion as to who was the real owner against which a revision was preferred before the Sessions Judge, which was dismissed by the order impugned. Hence, this application. 5. The vehicle bearing Registration No. BR-20P-0505 was admittedly financed by Suresh Automobiles, respondent No. 4 on the basis of hire purchase agreement dated 21.8.1998 and the terms and conditions of the hire purchase agreement, the total amount sanctioned by Financier was Rs. 4,72,295/- and the respondent No. 3, the informant was required to make initial payment of Rs. 1,22,295/- so there was a balance of Rs. 3,50,000/- whereas the total liability was Rs. 5,67,500/-. The informant paid instalments upto 18.9.2000 and he failed to pay balance instalments of Rs. 2,71,761/-. The Sessions Judge committed error in rejecting the petition for release of the vehicle. 6. The informant also filed a counter affidavit claiming therein that in terms of letter dated 15.6.2000 total dues was Rs. 1,16,299/- out of which he paid Rs. 29,000/- on 18.9.2000 and standing dues was only Rs. 87,229/-. It is further alleged that the documents were created by committing forgery and the documents contained only signature without dates as well as District Transport Officer, Bokaro equally connived in transferring the vehicle in absence of the informant. 7. 1,16,299/- out of which he paid Rs. 29,000/- on 18.9.2000 and standing dues was only Rs. 87,229/-. It is further alleged that the documents were created by committing forgery and the documents contained only signature without dates as well as District Transport Officer, Bokaro equally connived in transferring the vehicle in absence of the informant. 7. The respondent No. 4 Suresh Automobiles (Financier} also filed a counter affidavit claiming therein that the informant Raj Kishore Prasad Rai Akela had taken the said bus on the basis of hire purchase agreement from Suresh Automobiles as per terms and conditions (Annexure 3) and the informant agreed that in case of default in monthly instalments, he shall be bound to hand over the vehicle to the Financier and accordingly when he failed to pay instalments in time and finding no option the informant handed over the vehicle on 18.3.2001 (Annexure 7) and he also sworn affidavit that he has taken the payment of vehicle and he has also declared that he has no objection in transferring the said vehicle and therefore the vehicle may be released in favour of the Financier. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that admittedly the informant had purchased the said vehicle pursuant to hire purchase agreement dated 21.8.1998 and according to the terms and conditions of hire purchase agreement the total amount sanctioned by the Financier was Rs. 4,72,295/- whereas the respondent No. 3 (informant) required to make initial payment of Rs. 1,22,295/-so there was a balance of Rs. 3,50,000/- in three years in 33 equally monthly instalments of Rs. 1.57.500/- as interest for this period. Therefore, the total liability was of Rs. 5,67,500/-. It was further submitted that the informant paid instalments upto 18.9.2000 and he failed to pay balance instalments amounting to Rs. 2,71,761/-and when the informant failed to pay the instalments he surrendered the vehicle on 18.3.2001 in favour of the Financier and to this effect the informant also executed documents and sworn affidavit on 14.5.2001 as he had received the price of the said vehicle. It is further submitted that after completion of formality the District Transport Officer, Bokaro also transferred the vehicle in the name of Jai Kumar Prasad Roy. It is further submitted that after completion of formality the District Transport Officer, Bokaro also transferred the vehicle in the name of Jai Kumar Prasad Roy. However, the petitioner Financier is competent and entitled to get back the vehicle as the informant failed to pay the instalments and also he surrendered the vehicle in favour of the Financier. The Sessions Judge passed the order impugned only on assumption and conjectures when the informant is not denying about his signature anywhere (sic) the affidavits and the documents of surrender (Annexures 7 to 11). The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner also relied upon the case of Charanjit Singh Chadha and Ors. v. Sudhir Mehra, (2001) 7 SCC 417 . 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 3 (informant) contended before me that the learned Sessions Judge rightly passed the order impugned rejecting the prayer of the petitioners as they committed forgery on the documents. It is also submitted that the District Transport Officer, Bokaro in connivance with the petitioners transferred the registration in the name of Shri Jai Kumar Prasad Roy on 18.5.2001 which itself gives much suspicion about the fact that Jai Kumar Prasad Roy admitted in para 16 of the application that the Financier sold the said vehicle to him on 25.5.2001 for Rs. 3.53.000/- and if it was sold on 25.5.2001 then the question of transferring the registration prior to the said sale, i.e. 18.5.2001 does not arise. It is also submitted that the informant had already paid the instalment and also huge expenditure was made on repair of the vehicle. The learned counsel also relied upon the case of Manoj and Anr. v. Shriram Transport Finance Company, (2002) 2 East Cr C 76 (SC). 10. It is an admitted position that the informant had purchased the said vehicle bearing registration No. BR-20P-0505 pursuant to the hire purchase agreement financed by Suresh Automobiles by the agreement dated 21.8.1998. Under clause 5 of the terms of the agreement, it is specifically mentioned that in the case of default in the monthly instalments, he shall be bound to hand over the vehicle to the owners office. Under clause 5 of the terms of the agreement, it is specifically mentioned that in the case of default in the monthly instalments, he shall be bound to hand over the vehicle to the owners office. It is also apparent that the informant failed to pay the instalment and he had paid instalments upto 18.9.2000 from going through the Annexure 7, it is apparent that the informant already surrendered the vehicle in favour of the Financier (M/s. Suresh Automobiles} on 18.3.2001. The informant also sworn affidavit on 14.5.2001 claiming that he had received the payment of the price of the vehicle. It is also clear that the informant came to know about taking away the bus by the Financier on 28.6.2001 but the Fir has been lodged on 4.8.2001. It is also claimed that he had gone to Chas for transferring the bus on 5.7.2001 but even then the informant did not lodge FIR just thereafter, rather on 4.8.2001 the case was registered. Moreover there is no denial specifically by the informant about the signature on the documents of surrender and the affidavit as indicated in Annexures 7 to 11. It is true that there is no date put below the signature of the informant but that is also evident in the agreement dated 21.8.1998 which is admitted document where the informant signed in each paper of the agreement without putting date and therefore such pleading of the informant cannot be taken into account at this stage. The District & Sessions Judge failed to consider the agreement which is an admitted document. In terms of the agreement of the hire purchase, the informant already surrendered the vehicle in favour of the Financier. It is well settled that recovery of possession of vehicle by the owner/financier as per terms of hire purchase agreement does not amount to a criminal offence. Moreover, various documents executed by the informant itself clearly indicate that the vehicle was surrendered in favour of the financier due to non-payment of the instalment as being the defaulter. It is true that Financier (Suresh Automobiles) claimed to have sold the vehicle in favour of the petitioner Jai Kumar Prasad Roy, but no such document is coming forward to substantiate this fact though registration has been shown to be transferred in the name of Shri Jai Kumar Prasad Roy on 18.5.2001 and that matter is also for through investigation. It is true that Financier (Suresh Automobiles) claimed to have sold the vehicle in favour of the petitioner Jai Kumar Prasad Roy, but no such document is coming forward to substantiate this fact though registration has been shown to be transferred in the name of Shri Jai Kumar Prasad Roy on 18.5.2001 and that matter is also for through investigation. It may be noted that not a single chit of paper has been produced on behalf of the informant to show that he had actually made huge expenditure on the repair of the bus. 11. The facts of the case of Manoj and Anr. v. Shri Ram Transport Finance Company Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is quite distinguishable to the facts of the instant case as in that case a civil suit was already pending before the Civil Court in relation to the ownership of the vehicle in question. 12. The vehicle in question was admittedly purchased on the hire purchase basis and Suresh Automobiles was the Financier and the informant was also defaulter and had not paid the instalments as required under the terms of agreement. In such circumstances, in my view, the Financier Suresh Automobiles has rightly taken away the vehicle and this fact has also been corroborated by surrender certificate, Annexure 7, which was granted by the informant himself. 13. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, I find that the Sessions Court committed error in passing the order impugned, which is fit to be quashed. The Financier Suresh Automobiles is entitled to get the possession of the vehicle in question. 14. In the result, I find merit in the application of Suresh Automobiles [W.R (Cr.) 190/2002], which is allowed. But the vehicle bearing registration No. BR- 20P-0505 be released in favour of the petitioner-Suresh Automobiles on furnishing sufficient sureties to the satisfaction of the Court below, on a condition that the petitioner-Suresh Automobiles, shall produce the said vehicle, if and when required, by the Court below and further the petitioner shall not change the nature/make of the vehicle without permission of the Court. 15. Consequently, the writ petition being W.R (Cr.) No. 181 of 2002 has got no merit and the same is dismissed. Any observation made in this order will not prejudice the case of either party on merit.