JUDGMENT Applicants in this application under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code are seeking to quash the proceedings against them in Criminal Case No.850/2004 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, 9th Court , Nagpur. Charge sheet filed on 18.9.2004 for the offences punishable under section 341 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code 2. Brief facts leading to this application, may be stated thus. The respondent no.2 had taken loan from the Finance Company G.N.A. C. Financial Services Limited for purchasing a Car Opel Astra to the tune of Rs.2,90,000/-. He had executed a promissory note and the loan agreement on 21.4.2003. The loan agreement amongst other condition provided a clause for repossession of the vehicle by the finance company through itself or through agents, servants, representatives etc. It is alleged that said vehicle was in possession of his wife on 1.5.2004, when she was proceeding in her car MH 31 AG 1120 by the side of Tatya Tope Hall, at that time, some 8 persons came on four motorcycles and the car was halted, she was taken out from the said car and they took out away cash of Rs.20000/-, besides her jewellery in the car and also the car. Therefore, she lodged report to Police Station, Ranapratapnagar, and the offence under section 395, 509, read with section 34 of I.P.C. vide crime no.132/2004 was registered. After due investigation the applicants accused were charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under section 341 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code by the aforesaid charge sheet in the criminal case No.850/2004. The applicants seek to quash that proceedings. 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants that there was an agreement of repossession of the vehicle for non payment of the stipulated installments in pursuance of the loan granted to the respondent no.2. The said vehicle was repossessed, through the agents of the finance committee to recover the said amount, i.e. Shri Sai Agencies. Applicants are the recovery agents. It is contended that despite the notices even by registered post, the respondent no.1 and 2 did not make the payment of the installments. In fact a registered notice was sent through the counsel to respondent no.2 on 22.10.2003 calling upon him to pay the installments. It was also made clear that the said vehicle was liable to be repossessed. It is contended that despite the notices even by registered post, the respondent no.1 and 2 did not make the payment of the installments. In fact a registered notice was sent through the counsel to respondent no.2 on 22.10.2003 calling upon him to pay the installments. It was also made clear that the said vehicle was liable to be repossessed. The respondent no.2 had deliberately failed to pay the amount due. It was also informed that as the cheques issued by respondent no. 2 were dishonoured, they could be prosecuted for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act besides 406 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that despite this, the due amount was not paid so the finance company issued a repossession authority letter to the agent M/s Shri Sai Agencies and accordingly the said agency repossessed the said vehicle on the relevant date for which the respondent no.3 has lodged false report. It is further contended that the respondent no.2 had filed Special Civil Suit No.331/2004 seeking injunction against the finance company and for fresh possession of the said vehicle, the said suit was dismissed by the order dated 1.11.2006, which reads thus: ORDER Adv. of plaintiff absent till 4.00 p.m. Adv. of deft. appeared. Issues framed on 3.8.2006 below Ex. 21. Since this date plaintiff absent. No evidence adduced by plaintiff. Thus, suit is dismissed in default. sd/- 5th Joint C.J.S.D.. and therefore, the action taken by the recovering agent M/s Sai Agencies and by the applicants, is correct. In fact, the said recovering agent acted on behalf of finance company in pursuance to the terms of agreement and they did not take away any amount or ornaments from the respondent no.3 and the report lodged by her was false. Therefore, according to learned counsel for the applicant charge sheet & proceedings should be quashed. He has relied on the principles laid down by the Apex Court in MANU/SC/0514/2001 [Charanjit Singh Chadha and others ..vs.. Sudhir Mehra., to contend that in view of hire purchase agreement the vehicle can be repossessed by the finance company and if the same is repossessed, there can not be any offence. He has relied on the principles laid down by the Apex Court in MANU/SC/0514/2001 [Charanjit Singh Chadha and others ..vs.. Sudhir Mehra., to contend that in view of hire purchase agreement the vehicle can be repossessed by the finance company and if the same is repossessed, there can not be any offence. He has specifically relied on the order of the Civil Court between the parties to contend that when the suit filed by the respondent no.2 is dismissed, the offence against applicants cannot be made out and therefore, he has contended that, to allow to continue the prosecution of the applicants would amount to abuse of process of law and therefore, the same should be quashed. 4. As against this, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 - Shri Yengal submitted that the Police had rightly filed charge sheet under section 341 of I.P.C. against the applicants and as the recovering agents are not entitled to use force for repossessing the vehicle, nor they are entitled to commit any offence for that, they have been rightly prosecuted and therefore, an application to quash those proceedings should be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and 3 has submitted that it was highhandedness on the part of the finance company to press into service the alleged recovery agents to repossess the vehicle forcibly. The finance company should have resorted to the civil court for the recovery of amount, if any and claim possession of the vehicle. According to him, though the offence was alleged to have been committed under section 395 I.P.C. i.e. theft and extortion and dacoity, the police authorities have mitigated the offence to one under section 341 of I.P.C. and it was totally incorrect and if the charge sheet in the proceeding is quashed there would be no proceeding pending and opportunity to them to prove the offence under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code would be lost. Therefore, according to her, the proceedings should not be quashed. 6. In the case in hand, it would be seen that from the allegations in the report, the case for the offence under section 395 is alleged. The complainant has alleged that the amount of Rs.20000/- and some ornaments were also stolen in the incident. The charge sheet is filed only under section 341 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. In the case in hand, it would be seen that from the allegations in the report, the case for the offence under section 395 is alleged. The complainant has alleged that the amount of Rs.20000/- and some ornaments were also stolen in the incident. The charge sheet is filed only under section 341 of the Indian Penal Code. It is not known as to whether the complaint has been found to be .false. in respect of other allegations except wrongful restraints. 7. On record, it does appear that after some investigation, the matter was referred to the Higher Authority by P.S.O. and he was informed to file charge sheet under section 341 of the Indian Penal Code. The relevant Sana Entry shows that the matter was sent to the Assistant Police Commissioner, Sitabuli Division, Nagpur and when the matter was discussed with the Assistant Police Commissioner & Deputy Commissioner of Police, Circle -1, oral orders were given for sending charge sheet under section 341 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The said Sana Entry dated 17.9.2004, does not reveal as to why opinion was arrived at by the Police Authorities that only offence under section 341 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is made out and not under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code or any other like theft etc. 8. Here is the case where, by reply respondent no.2 and 3 have stated that the offence under section 395 was made out and the present respondents can make out a case for the same. It is specifically mentioned in the reply that it is submitted that although there was reference in the complaint dated 1.5.2004, that theft was of Rs.20000/-, and jewellery box, no offence came to be registered. 9. Therefore, if relying on the authorities, cited by the applicants, no offence is held to be not made out, and the charge sheet is quashed, respondent no.2 and 3 would not be able to lead evidence for the alleged offence under section 395 I.P.C. I have already pointed out above as to why the police authorities have come to the conclusion that only offence under section 341 is made out, is not on record. Therefore, the charge sheet against the applicants cannot be lightly quashed. 10. Therefore, the charge sheet against the applicants cannot be lightly quashed. 10. It is further necessary to bear in mind that although a civil suit filed by respondent no.2 i.e. Special Civil Suit No.331/2004 is dismissed, it seems to be dismissed because of default in leading the evidence. Therefore, it can not be said that the said matter has been decided on merits and therefore the dispute between the parties is only a civil dispute. In any case when the offence alleged against applicants is one under section 395, it is difficult to quash charge sheet inasmuch as even the recovery agencies acting on behalf of the financiers are not entitled to take law in hands in such a way. Respondents no.2 and 3 will have to be given an opportunity to lead evidence in support of their complaint, which can not be done, if the charge sheet is quashed. 11. In this view of the matter, it is not possible to allow this application. The same is therefore, dismissed.