JUDGMENT J.C.S. Rawat, J.- This petitioner u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been directed to quash the entire proceedings including the complaint ,and summoning order dated 27.05.1995 passed by the lat Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in Case No. 685 of 1994. 2. Brief facts for the disposal of this petition are that the complainant purchased a truck from Commercial Motors Dehradun. At the .time of the ' purchase Rs. 77,637/- was paid by the complainant and rest of the amount was to be paid in 23 equal instalments to the accused No. 1. The total amount " of the said truck with interest was Rs. 3,27,637/". The complainant made default in making the payment to the financier and thereafter a notice was issued on behalf of the company-accused No.1 to the complainant on 04.09.1993 requiring him to pay the outstanding amount till 31.09.1993 alongwith overdue compensation on the delayed payment within 21 days. Thereafter the said amount was not paid and the Solid vehicle was ceased by the financier and the possession was taken by the company. When the said truck was in possession of the applicant/company, notice was again given to the complainant to pay the dues so tha1 the truck may be handed over to him. But inspite of the notice no such amount \vas paid and thereafter the said truck was auctioned. Thereafter the complainant filed the complaint before the Magistrate alleging therein the above facts and also alleged that the accused/applicants had malafide intentions from the very inception and they were working with dear intention to usurp the truck of the complainant and thereby caused wrongful loss to him and loss to his prestige. Learned Magistrate took the cognizance u/s 120-B, 420 I.P.C: 3. No counter affidavit has been filed in this matter. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. It was contended on behalf of the applicants that the complainant was a defaulter and had committed the necessary breach of the hire purchase agreement and inspite of the necessary follow up done by the applicant-company, he failed to dear the overdue alongwith necessary compensation due thereon. The accused on behalf of the company had opted their option to repossess the be hide according to the terms and conditions of the hire purchase agreement. The accused on behalf of the company had opted their option to repossess the be hide according to the terms and conditions of the hire purchase agreement. It was further contended that if the said vehicle was taken into possession in the said terms and conditions of the hire purchase agreement, the accused cannot be held guilty and they have exercised their lawful right. It is also pointed out in the complaint that the hire purchase agreement was not revoked by the complainant. The complainant himself admitted that there was a hire purchase agreement. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Orix Auto Finance (India) Ltd. Vs. jagmander Singh and another (2006) 2 SCC 598 has held that if the hire purchase agreement has been violated, the Finance company has got the right to case the vehicle and repossess the said be hide in terms and conditions of the hire purchase agreement. In Sardar Trilik Singh and others Vs. Satya Deo Tripathi (1979) 4 SCC 396, the property was ceased in exercise of the bonafide right over it and complaint was filed before the Magistrate and the Magistrate took the cognizance against the applicant but the Magistrate did not consider that there was a hire purchase agreement and there was option of the financer to repossession the property. If the default has been committed and the right of the repossession exists, the financer becomes the rightful owner of the property to repossess it. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that if the criminal court has taken the cognizance against the financer company or against the accused, it is a case wherein there is an abuse of process of law and the High Court should prevent it by exercising it power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. 6. In view of the above discussion, I am of the view that the entire proceedings inducing the complaint and summoning order dated 27.05.1995 passed by the 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in Case No. 685 of 1994 are liable to be quashed and the same is accordingly quashed. 7. The petition is accordingly allowed.