( 1 ) THIS revisional application under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure code, 1973 at the instance of the petitioners who were accused persons in complaint Case No. 79c of 2005 is for quashing the said case corresponding to T. R. No. 275 of 2005. ( 2 ) THE said complaint case was brought by the present opposite party/ respondent No. 1 against the present petitioners for alleged offence under sections 379/504 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 3 ) THE facts giving rise to filing of the said complaint case may be epitomized thus: - (i) The opposite party/respondent No. 1 approached the Magma leasing Ltd. having its head office at 24, Park Street, Kolkata through its Branch Office at Kharagpur for providing financial assistance to purchase a vehicle. The said Magma Leasing Ltd. is a Non-Banking financial Institution which is incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and the opposite party No. 1 approached the said institution in the month of August 2003 for the said financial assistance. (ii) Subsequently, a hire purchase agreement was executed in between the complainant and the respondent on 14. 8. 2003 wherein it was agreed that towards re-payment of its dues, the respondent No. 2 would pay at the rate of Rs 18. 226/- per month for 35 instalments and at the rate of Rs. 16,340/- per month for 12 instalments. Subsequently, after the release of the amount, the opposite party No. 1 was provided with a vehicle which was registered as WB-29-5087. (iii) The opposite party No 1 was irregular in payment of the instalments and accordingly the present petitioner issued a notice dated 6. 1. 2005 calling upon the opposite party/respondent No. 1 to pay the amount. In spite of receiving the said notice, the opposite party/ respondent No 1 did not pay the amount and as such, the present petitioners took over possession of the vehicle on 24. 1. 2005. The present petitioners sent telegram to the opposite party No. 1 and Police Station regarding the said fact (re-possession) . ( 4 ) THE opposite party No. 1 suppressing all such facts lodged one complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purba Midnapur for alleged offence under Sections 379/504 of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioners. 1. 2005. The present petitioners sent telegram to the opposite party No. 1 and Police Station regarding the said fact (re-possession) . ( 4 ) THE opposite party No. 1 suppressing all such facts lodged one complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purba Midnapur for alleged offence under Sections 379/504 of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioners. In the said complaint the opposite party No. 1 took the plea that he is the registered owner of the vehicle in question (Truck) having registration No. WB-29-5087 after entering into an hire purchase agreement with M/s. Magma Leasing Limited and was running the said truck He also made averment in the said complaint that he was paying instalments regularly as agree. d by the parties. On 24. 1. 2005 the present petitioners took away the said vehicle from Haldia Mecheda Road. In all 7/8 unknown persons took part in the said snatching, They also took away all the documents from the Driver who was forced to sign over a yellow paper and some other white papers. The opposite party No. 1 was informed about the said incident by the Driver who immediately went to Sutahata Police Station. The Officer-in-Charge asked the opposite party No. 1 to settle the disputes. Finding no other alternative the complainant i. e. opposite party No. 1 went to Kharagpur branch office on the next day and found the truck in question there with loaded sand. He was also told by Officer-in-Charge, Kharagpur Police Station to settle the disputes and thereafter he came to the office of petitioner No. 2 at Kolkata. He also lodged a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tamluk which was numbered as 18/2005. The said case is still pending. ( 5 ) THE learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after taking cognizance of the offence transferred the case to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Third Court, tamluk for disposal. The learned Magistrate thereafter examined the witnesses on S. A. and after being satisfied issued process against the present petitioners for alleged offence under Sections 379/504 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 6 ) THE learned Magistrate also on the basis of an application under section 94 of the Criminal Procedure Code passed order on 17. 3. 2005 and directed the Officer-in-Charge, Kharagpur Town Police Station to recover the vehicle in question as per Section 97 of the Criminal Procedure Code. ( 6 ) THE learned Magistrate also on the basis of an application under section 94 of the Criminal Procedure Code passed order on 17. 3. 2005 and directed the Officer-in-Charge, Kharagpur Town Police Station to recover the vehicle in question as per Section 97 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Magistrate also issued warrant of arrest against the petitioner No. 2. Subsequently, the vehicle in question was given back in custody of the complainant. ( 7 ) IT should be stated here that in spite of service of notice upon the opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No. 2 none appeared. ( 8 ) MR. P. K. Srivastava, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners challenged the entire proceeding on the ground that the complainant did not come before the Court below with clean hands Mr. Srivastava contended further that by suppressing material facts, the complainant obtained order from the court concerned and as such, this Court should invoke its inherent power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and quash the entire criminal proceeding pending before the Court below. ( 9 ) MR. Srivastava further contended that the entire materials-on-record will go to show that the disputes in between the parties was purely civil in nature and in fact, the complainant already opted for his relief before the District consumer Disputes Redressal Forum where he filed the application which was numbered as Consume Case No 18 of 2005. ( 10 ) MR. Srivastava also challenged the maintainability of the criminal case before the trial Court on the ground that admittedly the complainant on the basis of the hire purchase agreement got the vehicle in question. Mr. Srivastava drew the attention of the Court to Annexure "p-1" which is the hire purchase finance agreement and drew the attention of the Court to the Clause 14 which is the default clause On the basis of the same it was argued by Mr. Srivastava that a sum of Rs. 6,75,000/- was taken as loan and the made of re-payment has also been mentioned therein. He drew the attention of the Court to the copy of the demand promissory note which was executed by the complainant with respect to a sum of rs,8,34,000/- which includes the interest over the actual loan of rs. 6,75,000/ -. 6,75,000/- was taken as loan and the made of re-payment has also been mentioned therein. He drew the attention of the Court to the copy of the demand promissory note which was executed by the complainant with respect to a sum of rs,8,34,000/- which includes the interest over the actual loan of rs. 6,75,000/ -. He also drew the attention of the Court to Annexure "p-2" which is a demand notice by which the complainant was asked to pay the outstanding amount as on 6. 1. 2005. ( 11 ) MR. Srivastava further contended that as the complainant did not liquidate the said outstanding amount, the present petitioners took over possession of the vehicle in question on 24. 1. 2005. ( 12 ) THE fact of re-possession by the present petitioners of the Truck was duly informed to the complainant and police officials of the locality. ( 13 ) MR, Srivastava challenged the entire proceedings on the ground that as per the hire purchase agreement, the complainant agreed that in case of default of payment, the present petitioners would be entitled to take back the vehicle in question without going to the Court. ( 14 ) MR. Srivastava drew the attention of the Court to the case in between arindam Basu and Ors. v. Amal Kumar Basu and Ors. which is numbered as M. A. T. No. 1611 of 2001. The judgment passed by the Division Bench of Bhaskar bhattacharya, J. and myself held that the financier has the right to get lawful possession of the vehicle in question in case of default of payment as per hire purchase agreement. In that case we relied upon the decisions of the following cases: - (a) Charanjit Singh Chadha v. Sudhir Mehra, reported in 2001 (7)SCC 417 , (b) Manipal Finance Ltd, v. T. Bangarappa, reported in 1994 Supp. (1) SCC 507, (c) Sardar Trilok Singh v. Satyadeo Tripati, reported in 1979 (4)SCC 396 , (d) K. A. Mathai v. Kora Bibikuti, reported in 1996 (7) SCC 212 . ( 15 ) ON the basis of the reported cases the said Division Bench allowed the mandamus appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned Single judge by which the vehicle in question was directed to be returned to the writ petitioners. ( 15 ) ON the basis of the reported cases the said Division Bench allowed the mandamus appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned Single judge by which the vehicle in question was directed to be returned to the writ petitioners. In this case, the complainant did not say specifically in the complaint that there was no default regarding re-payment of the loaned amount as per agreement. On the contrary, it is clear from the documents which were made annexures to the revisional application that there was default in re-payment of the instalments for which notice was given and in spite of the same the said amount was not liquidated by the complainant who is the opposite party No. 1 in the instant case. ( 16 ) MR. Srivastava also challenged the order by which the warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner No. 2 and Mr. Srivastava further contended that the learned Magistrate by issuing warrant of arrest abused the process of law as address of the petitioner No. 2 who was accused No. 2 before the Court below was mentioned wrongly in the complaint. He drew the attention of the Court that the address of the accused No. 2 as per hire purchase agreement is at 24, Park Street, Kolkata-700 016 whereas in the complaint the number has been mentioned as 20, Park Street, Kolkata. ( 17 ) THE opposite parties did not appear in spite of service of notice. In the affidavit of service it has been specifically mentioned that the notice was sent by registered post and the letter written by the Postal Department goes to show that the same was duly served upon the opposite party No. 1 on 30. 6. 2005. The opposite party No. 1 in spite of getting the opportunity did not deny the allegation made against him by swearing an affidavit. It is also clear from affidavit of service that notice was duly served upon the opposite party No. 2. 6. 2005. The opposite party No. 1 in spite of getting the opportunity did not deny the allegation made against him by swearing an affidavit. It is also clear from affidavit of service that notice was duly served upon the opposite party No. 2. ( 18 ) CONSIDERING the fact that the entire matter is civil in nature and also considering the fact that the opposite party No. 1 opted for his relief before the district Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, I am of clear opinion that it would be miscarriage of justice if the criminal proceeding before the Court below allowed to continue as the same would be harassment on the part of the present petitioners. As such, I hold that this is a fit case where the Court should invoke its inherent power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure code to stop the abuse of process of law and from further harassment of the present petitioners. ( 19 ) AS such, the revisional application is allowed. The criminal proceeding being complaint Case No. 79c of 2005 corresponding to T. R. No. 278 of 2005 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, tamluk for alleged offence under Sections 379/504 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed. The present petitioners are at liberty to approach before the proper forum for getting back the vehicle in question. However, there would be no order as to costs.