S. L. KOCHAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS Criminal Revision, has been filed by the applicant /accused for quashing proceedings pending before learned Judicial in Criminal Case No. 279/02 as well as impugned order dated 2-7-2002 thereby, dismissing the application filed under Ss. 203, 204 Cr PC, by the applicants for their discharge. ( 2 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that Non-applicant No. 1 has filed criminal complaint against applicants under Ss. 406, 420 IPC alleging that on 30th Nov. 2001, at about 3. 15 p. m. applicants came to his house and forcibly took Wagon R. VX/car bearing registration No. MP 09/t-0532. The said vehicle was taken by the applicants forcibly without his permission. It is also alleged that on some blank papers, by adopting coercive method, his signatures were obtained. The vehicle was purchased by the non-applicant No. 1 from the applicants on hire purchase agreement and it was financed by the applicants on 14/08/2000. The applicants have advanced 3,68,000/- rupees for the purchase of this vehicle. ( 3 ) IN the RTO, the vehicle is registered in the name of non-applicant No. 1 and the name of the applicant's Company is also mentioned as financier. For the purpose of payment in instalments of Rs. 12,340/-, cheques were taken by the applicants in advance. On the basis of the said cheques, applicants were regularly receiving instalments. He has also alleged that applicants were trying to sell and transfer the vehicle and also withdrawing money by cheque even after seizure of the vehicle. On these facts, he submitted that applicants has committed offence of cheating and misappropriation, punishable under Ss. 406, 420 IPC. Learned trial Court, after recording statement of the complainant under S. 200 Cr. PC. , registered the case only under S. 406 IPC against applicants and issued process. ( 4 ) APPLICANTS appeared before the trial Court through Advocate and submitted an application under Ss. 203 and 204 Cr PC along with relevant documents about hire purchase account of the complainant about depositing of instalments and the balance amount and other relevant papers and prayed for discharge and dropping criminal proceedings against them. ( 4 ) APPLICANTS appeared before the trial Court through Advocate and submitted an application under Ss. 203 and 204 Cr PC along with relevant documents about hire purchase account of the complainant about depositing of instalments and the balance amount and other relevant papers and prayed for discharge and dropping criminal proceedings against them. ( 5 ) THE contention of the counsel that the complaint was filed with an oblique motive just to harass and degrade applicants though no criminal case is made out as the vehicle was purchased by non-applicant No. 1 on hire purchase agreement and on failure to pay instalment, as per condition, the applicants had taken the vehicle in their custody. The purchase of the vehicle on hire purchase agreement as well as raising of loan from the applicants, have not been denied by Non-applicant No. 1. Therefore, dispute, at the most, would be of civil nature. Learned trial court has dismissed the application on the ground that offence punishable under S. 406 IPC could be tried in a warrant trial and the applicants could raise all the aforesaid points at the time of recording of evidence before charge and applicants could not get benefit of the decisions relied on by them in their favour at this stage. ( 6 ) THE contention of the counsel for the applicants is that since the transactions between applicants and non-applicant No. 1, is under hire purchase agreement, under default clause, the vehicle was seized. Therefore, no offence is made out against applicants. The dispute is purely of civil nature and criminal proceedings initiated by non-applicant No. 1, are abuse of process of Court of law. Therefore, deserve to be quashed. In support the counsel placed reliance on Supreme Court judgments passed in the cases of Trilok Singh v. Satya Deo ( AIR 1979 SC 850 : (1980 Cri LJ 822) and Charanjit Singh Chadha v. Sudhir Mehra (2001)7 SCC 417 : (2001 Cri LJ 4255 ). ( 7 ) IN counter to this learned counsel for Non-applicant No. 1, has raised preliminary objection that against the impugned order dated 3-7-2002, applicants should have filed revision before the Sessions Court. ( 7 ) IN counter to this learned counsel for Non-applicant No. 1, has raised preliminary objection that against the impugned order dated 3-7-2002, applicants should have filed revision before the Sessions Court. In support, he relied on the following decisions :- (I) 1996 Cr LJ 172; (Bombay) tejram S/o Mahadeorao v. Smt. Sunanda (ii) 1999 Cr LJ 122; (Bombay) padmanabh Keshav Kamat v. Anup R. Kantak (iii) (1997)2 MPWN Note No. 07; deokaran v. State of M. P. ( 8 ) THE counsel further submitted that at this stage, defence of the applicants cannot be looked into. Impugned order dated 3-7-2002 passed by the Court below is well within the purview of law. He further placed reliance on the following judgments :- (I) 1999 Cri LJ 4113; (All) r. T. Arasu v. State of U. P. (ii) (2001)2 MPLJ 474 ; r. K. Shrivastava v. Mullo Bai Kahar (iii) 1990 Jab LJ 534; t. Parthasarathy v. Madhu Sangal ( 9 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the entire record of the case and the documents filed by both the parties. ( 10 ) AFTER going through the complaint allegations and documents, it emerged that there is no dispute regarding purchase of vehicle by NA No. 1/complainant on hire purchase agreement after raising loan from the applicants. Complete documents of hire purchase agreement have been filed as Exh. P/2 and this agreement is having a default clause. The default clause is that "failure to deposit instalment in time, applicants will have right to seize vehicle and also realise remaining amount after setting the same. This is clear from clause "g" Rights and Remedies of ICICI. ( 11 ) THE grievance of the complainant is that he has deposited all the instalments even then the vehicle was taken away from his house forcibly. On the basis of this grievance, it cannot be said that applicants have committed offence under S. 406 IPC. In the case of Trilok Singh (1980 Cri LJ 822) (Supra), before the Supreme Court, fact was that in a dispute between the parties relating to purchase of a truck by the complainant , hire purchase agreement was entered into between respondents and finance Corporation /accused (Appellant ). Loan was payable in monthly instalments. In the case of Trilok Singh (1980 Cri LJ 822) (Supra), before the Supreme Court, fact was that in a dispute between the parties relating to purchase of a truck by the complainant , hire purchase agreement was entered into between respondents and finance Corporation /accused (Appellant ). Loan was payable in monthly instalments. According to the agreement in default of any instalment, financier had a right to terminate hire purchase agreement even without notice and seize the vehicle. The Supreme Court held that if the vehicle was seized on default of payment of instalment, it could not be said that offence under S. 406 IPC is committed by the financier. The Supreme Court has also held that if on these facts, any criminal case has been filed then it would be clear abuse of the process of the Court of law and the same must be rectified by invoking inherent powers under S. 482 Cr. PC. In the recent case of Charanjit Singh (2001 Cri LJ 4255) (Supra) similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, no prima facie case is made out against applicants for initiation of criminal proceedings and the same deserve to be quashed by invoking inherent powers of this Court. ( 12 ) SO far as preliminary objection raised by the counsel for the non-applicant No. 1 about manageability of present petition is concerned, there is direct Division Bench decision of the this Court in the case of State of M. P. v. Khizar Mohammad, 1996 MPLJ 1007 ) : (1997 Cri LJ 549 ). The Division Bench has held that provisions of S. 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 confer concurrent revisional jurisdiction on the High Court and the Sessions Court and the option is with the party aggrieved to approach any one of the two Courts. The option contained in S. 397 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 is with the aggrieved party. It is apparent that the High Court cannot insist that the party should first approach the Sessions Court. The Division Bench has given this opinion on the reference made by a single Judge of this Court because of two conflicting judgments passed by two single Bench of this Court. Counsel for the non-applicant No. 1 has placed reliance on the judgment delivered by Single Bench. The Division Bench has given this opinion on the reference made by a single Judge of this Court because of two conflicting judgments passed by two single Bench of this Court. Counsel for the non-applicant No. 1 has placed reliance on the judgment delivered by Single Bench. Therefore, same has no bearing on the point involved in the light of the Division Bench decision of this Court (Supra ). ( 13 ) THERE is no force in the contention of the counsel for the applicants that at this stage defence of the applicants cannot be looked into. It is not a defence of the applicants but it is admitted position about the purchase of vehicle by non-applicant No. 1 on hire purchase agreement. The only dispute is between the applicant and non-applicant No. 1 about payment of instalment and use of default clause by the financier. The case laws relied on by the counsel for the applicants (supra) have no bearing on this point. None of the cases, is relating to the dispute between the parties on hire purchase agreement. There is no dispute that at the initial stage, the defence of the accused cannot be considered but at the same time, the Courts are also required to see that on a given facts and circumstances of the case whether prima facie offence for proceeding against accused persons is made out or not. In the present case on facts as indicated above, it is a clear dispute of civil nature, which has been given colour to a criminal, case. Therefore, in view of the Supreme Court Judgments in case of Trilok Singh (Supra) and Chranjit Singh (supra) this criminal revision is allowed. Proceedings pending before the trial Court is hereby quashed. Petition allowed. .