JUDGMENT D.G.R. Patnaik, J. 1. Both these application arising out of the same case are taken up together for disposal at the stage of admission. In Cr. M.P. No. 217 of 2006, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the proceedings pending against him pursuant to the order of cognizance dated 10.6.2005 vide TR No. 1021 of 2005 (Complaint case No. 739 of 2004) for offences under Sections 420/379/120B IPC, presently pending in the court of Sri M.C. Jha, judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Hazaribagh. In Cr.M.P. No. 908 of 2006, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 22.4.2006 passed by the Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh, in Criminal Revision No. 21 of 2006 affirming the order dated 19.11.2006 passed by Sri M.C. Jha, Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Hazaribagh in T.R. No. 1021 of 2005 whereby petitioners prayer for protection under Section 205 Cr. P. C. has been rejected. The primary ground advanced by the petitioner in support of his prayer is that the continuance of the criminal proceedings on the basis of the averments made in the complaint petition of the opposite party No. 2/complainant, an abuse of the process of the court since they relate to a dispute of civil nature involving breach of hire purchase agreement and no criminal offence whatsoever is made out. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, is that the complainant had purchased a tractor from M/s Sonalika Tractors, Hazaribagh. Part of the price to the extent of a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/-, was financed by M/s Dhanbad Finance Private Ltd. of which the present petitioner happens to be the proprietor. A hire purchase agreement was entered into by and between the petitioner and the opposite party No. 2/complainant in respect of the amount financed and for the repayment of the same, ten blank cheques drawn on the Syndicate Bank Hazaribagh was given by the complainant. The borrowed amount was to be re-paid by the complainant in 24 instalments. He had paid Rs. 60,100/- and after a gap, had paid off further amount of Rs. 70,000/- to the financer by a bank draft dated 5.2.2003. The complainant has alleged that despite refund of the entire loan amount, the tractor along with its trailor was taken away by certain persons with the connivance of the petitioner and other co-accused persons, despite the fact that the trailor was free from all encumbrances. 70,000/- to the financer by a bank draft dated 5.2.2003. The complainant has alleged that despite refund of the entire loan amount, the tractor along with its trailor was taken away by certain persons with the connivance of the petitioner and other co-accused persons, despite the fact that the trailor was free from all encumbrances. It is alleged that after having taken away the trailor, it was sold away to accused No. 3 and likewise, engine of the tractor was also illegally sold away. Further allegation has been made that the co-accused had obtained signatures of the complainant on blank pieces of papers under threats of grievous injury. 3. In course of inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. statement of the complainant and his witnesses were recorded on solemn affirmation and on considering the same, the learned court below, by the impugned order dated 10.6.2005, recorded its observation that a prima facie case for offences under Section 420/379/120B of the IPC is made out against the accused persons and had issued summons directing them to appear and face trial. 4. The complainant/opposite party No. 2 has appeared through Advocate and filed counter affidavit wherein he has made certain acknowledgements, namely, that after seizure of the tractor by the accused persons, on 5.9.2002 he paid the dues of rupees seventy thousand to the petitioner towards arrears of the balance of the dues and later, by two separate bank drafts dated 4.2.2003 and 5.2.2003, he paid off further balance amount of Rs. 45,000/- and 25,000/- respectively. The complainant has admitted that the finance for purchase of the tractor was provided by the present petitioner through his finance Company, namely M/s Dhanbad Finance Pvt. Limited and that he, the complainant, had borrowed Rs. 1.40 lakhs from the present petitioner which was repayable by him in 24 instalments. The complainant has also acknowledged that subsequently, he sold away the tractor to accused No. 3, Rajendra Sao, for settled consideration and pursuant to the agreement between them, a compromise petition under their joint signatures was filed before the court below at the time when prayer for bail of the said accused No. 3 was being considered by the learned court below. 5. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the very institution of the proceedings against the petitioner by the complainant is with mala fide intentions intended to harass him and even on reading the entire allegation in the complaint petition, no criminal liability for any of the offences of which cognizance has been taken by the court below, is attracted against the petitioner. Learned counsel explains that admittedly the complainant had borrowed rupees 1.40 lakhs from the petitioners company by way of finance for purchase of the tractor under hire purchase agreement executed by and between him and the petitioner. Though the complainant used to deposit the amount of monthly instalment towards repayment of the loan, but a sum of Rs. 9,900/- remained over due which the complainant failed to pay despite reminders. Learned Counsel explains that the relation between the complainant and the petitioner is based entirely on the commercial agreement of hire purchase and the complainant is bound by the conditions laid down therein. As per Clause 11(a)(b) of the hire purchase agreement, the petitioner had every right to re-possess the tractor, if the principal amount together with interest, remained unpaid, either in part or in full. Learned Counsel explains that the complainants grievance against the petitioner is for the petitioners alleged act of taking possession of the vehicle through accused No. 1. But the mere act of taking re-possession of the tractor in itself does not invite any criminal liability since the act constitutes a right vested in the petitioner under the terms of the contract agreed to by the complainant himself. Learned Counsel explains further that the allegation of the complainant/opposite party No. 2 in the complaint petition are false and misleading as has been demonstrated by the statement of the complainant and his witness examined on solemn affirmation during the course of the inquiry. Learned Counsel explains hat though it was alleged in the complaint petition that the trailor attached to the tractor was also illegally taken away by the accused persons from his possession, yet the fact which subsequently surfaced was that the complainant had himself sold away the trailor to accused No. 3 for valuable consideration. Further-more, none of the witnesses examined by the complainant had supported the complainants case against the petitioner. Further-more, none of the witnesses examined by the complainant had supported the complainants case against the petitioner. Learned Counsel explains that the court below has seriously erred in failing to consider the background facts and circumstances and has proceeded to issue summons against the petitioner directing him to face trial, without application of its judicial mind. 6. From the facts admitted by the complainant/opposite party No. 2 in his counter affidavit, it appears that till the date when the tractor was seized or taken away from his possession, he had not paid off the entire dues though he was obliged to make repayment of the loan obtained by him from the petitioner. Admittedly, the opposite party No. 2 had entered into a hire purchase agreement with the petitioner under which the petitioner had financed Rs. 1.40 lakhs to the opposite party for enabling the purchase of the tractor and under the terms of the agreement, the financer had right, in the event of borrowers failure to re-pay the money, to re-possess the vehicle against which loan was advanced. The opposite party No. 2 has acknowledged that the balance amount of money payable by him to the financer was, in fact, paid by him only after the financer had taken repossession of the vehicle. 7. In the case of Charanjit Singh Chadha v. Sudhir Mehra , the Supreme Court has categorically held that recovery of possession of the goods by the owner/financer as per the terms under the hire purchase contract does not amount to criminal offence. It was also held that when the hirer defaulted in payment of instalment of the borrowed amount in respect of the vehicle, and the agreement specifically provided that the financer were entitled to re-possess the vehicle in case of default and their agents were authorized to enter into the premises for the purpose and the financer had actual possession of the vehicle, no offence was made out against the financer. 8. No doubt, taking of repossession cannot be visited by force or by any unlawful methods and can be resorted to only by due process of law, but where the facts and circumstances of the case do not indicate that any force was applied, or any unlawful method was used, no criminal liability can be attracted against the financer for taking re-possession of the vehicle. The contention of the petitioner that he had issued repeated notices to the complainant demanding repayment of the dues with prior warning that the petitioner would be compelled to exercise his right under the contract for taking repossession of the hire- purchased vehicle, has not been denied by the opposite party No. 2 in his counter affidavit. It is therefore apparent that repossession of the hired vehicle was taken by the petitioner only after resorting to legal methods permissible in exercise of his rights under the contract entered into by and between him and the complainant. It appears that the opposite party No. 2 was ill advised to lodge a criminal proceeding by filing a complainant and the element of mala fide in the filing of the complaint is clearly discernible from the facts and circumstances of the case. The plea that the accused including the petitioner had caused theft of the complainants vehicle is without any basis, as the petitioner took repossession of the vehicle in exercise of his right under the agreement. Such act on the part of the petitioner does not amount to theft as the essential element of dishonest intention is lacking. 9. In Charanjit Singhs case (supra), the Supreme Court has held that the act of the owner repossessing vehicle delivered to the hirer under the hire purchase agreement will not amount to theft as the vital element of "dishonest intention" is lacking. The essential element of dishonest intention to constitute an offence of theft cannot be attributed to a person exercising his right under the agreement entered into between the parties as he may not have the intention of causing wrongful gain for himself or causing wrongful loss to the hirer. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, I find merit in these applications. Accordingly, the prayer made in Cr.M.P. No. 217 of 2006 is allowed and the entire criminal proceedings against the petitioner in T.R. No. 1021 of 2005 (Complaint Case No. 739 of 2004) pending in the court of Sri M.C. Jha, Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Hazaribagh) is hereby set aside. In view of the above order, no order need be passed in Cr.M.P. No. 908 of 2006, which accordingly stands disposed of.