JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. By this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding initiated against them being C-I Case No. 400 of 2003 including the order dated 31.05.2003 whereby cognizance: has been taken for the offence under Section 341/406 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jamshedpur. 2. It appears that the aforementioned complaint case was filed by the complainant/opposite party No. 2 alleging inter alia that the complainant alongwith his friend Balbir Singh Bhatia purchased two trailers, which was financed by the petitioners on repayment by installments. Complainant alleged to have purchased one more trailer being registration No. AS-01-OL/5307. The complainant alleged that the he was paying installments as agreed but suddenly without any information the trailer was seized by the petitioners with the help of Musdemen. After getting information, the complainant alleged to have paid entire balance amount to the petitioner and on that condition trailer was released and it was stated by the petitioners that receipt of payment would be sent through Calcutta Branch Office. Other trailer alleged to have also been seized in the manner aforesaid and the said vehicle was also released on payment of balance amount but the receipt was not given. Various other allegations have been made. The Magistrate after examining witnesses took cognizance against the Managing Director and the Branch Manager of the Finance Company. 3. The matter was first taken up on 03.7.2003 when notices were issued by a Bench of this Court and further proceeding in the complaint case was stayed. Again by order-dated 5.8.2004, the opposite party/complainant was allowed two weeks time to file affidavit giving details of the amount he has paid till date. The matter remain pending and was listed on 19.6.2006 and on that date the following was passed: Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the mater of compromise was going in between the parties and by this tie the parties must have entered into a compromise, hut he has not got any definite information to that. Therefore, the case be adjourned for a week so that in the meantime, he may ascertain whether the parties have entered into compromise or not. In view of the submission, let this case be placed under the same heading on 30.6.2006. 4. Therefore, the case be adjourned for a week so that in the meantime, he may ascertain whether the parties have entered into compromise or not. In view of the submission, let this case be placed under the same heading on 30.6.2006. 4. This case was again listed on 12.2.2007 and on that date learned Counsel for the opposite parties prayed for further time for filing supplementary affidavit: but till date no supplementary affidavit was filed. 5. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 6. Admittedly, on the basis of hire-purchase agreement in between the petitioners and the complainant, the petitioner paid total price of the vehicle on the condition agreed by complainant that the amount should be paid in installments. Because of some disputes between the petitioner and the complainant, the vehicle was taken away by the petitioner/financer. In the complaint petition, complainant has categorically stated that he alongwith Balbir Singh Bhatia purchased two trailers which was financed by the petitioner/accused on payment of installment. It was alleged that although complainant was paying installments but suddenly vehicle was seized by the petitioners. On the basis of the said allegation made in the complaint petition, the Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 341/406 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. Petitioners case is that complainant had been a defaulter and various cheques issued by him were dishonored. Thereafter, in terms of the loan agreement, petitioner intimated the police before taking possession of the vehicle and as a matter of fact it was only after the complainant failed to pay installments and cheques were: dishonored, possession of the vehicle was taken. 8. Be that as it may, in my view, even if the entire allegation set out in the complaint petition is assumed to be true, no case under Section 341/406 I.P.C. is made out against the petitioner. 9. Similar question came for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of Charattjit Singh Chadha and Ors. v. Sudhir Mehra . In that case also respondent entered into a hire-purchase agreement with the appellants, owners of a non-banking financial institution, in respect, of a motor vehicle. The total consideration was paid on the condition that the said amount shall be re-paid by the complainant in 36 equal monthly installments. v. Sudhir Mehra . In that case also respondent entered into a hire-purchase agreement with the appellants, owners of a non-banking financial institution, in respect, of a motor vehicle. The total consideration was paid on the condition that the said amount shall be re-paid by the complainant in 36 equal monthly installments. The dispute developed at some stage and the respondent filed criminal complaint alleging that the vehicle had been seized by: the appellant. Discussing the entire facts their Lordships held as under: 5. Hire-purchase agreements are executory contracts under which the goods are let on hire and the hirer has an option to purchase in accordance with the terms of the agreement. These types of agreements were originally entered into between the dealer and the customer and the dealer used to extend credit to the customer. But as hire-purchase scheme gained in popularity and in size, the dealers who were not endowed with liberal amount of working capital found it difficult to extend the scheme to many customers. Then the financiers came into the picture. The finance company would buy the goods from the dealer and let them to the customer under hire-purchase agreement. The dealer would deliver the goods to the customer who would then drop out of the transaction leaving the finance company to collect installments directly from the customer. Under hire- purchase agreement, the hirer is simply paying for the use of the goods and for the option to purchase them. The finance charge, representing the difference between the cash price and the hire-purchase price, is not interest but represents a sum which the hirer has to pay for the privilege of being allowed to discharge the purchase price of goods by installments. Their Lordships further observed: 17. The hire-purchase agreement in law is an executory contract of sale and confers no right in rem on the hirer until the conditions for transfer of the property to him have been fulfilled. Therefore, the repossession of goods as per the term of the agreement may not amount to any criminal offence. Their Lordships further observed: 17. The hire-purchase agreement in law is an executory contract of sale and confers no right in rem on the hirer until the conditions for transfer of the property to him have been fulfilled. Therefore, the repossession of goods as per the term of the agreement may not amount to any criminal offence. The agreement (Annexure P-1) specifically gave authority to the appellants to repossess the vehicle and their agents; have been given the right to enter any property or building wherein the motor vehicle was likely to be kept Under the hire-purchase agreement, the appellants have continued to be the owners of the vehicle and even if the entire allegations against them are taken as true, no offence was made out against them. The learned Single Judge seriously flawed in his decision and failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by not quashing the proceedings initiated Against the appellants. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment. The complaint and any other proceedings initiated pursuant to such complaint are quashed. 10. In another decision in the case of K.A. Mathai @ Babu and Anr. v. Kora Bibbikutty and Anr. , the Supreme Court held as under: 3. It is more than clear that the hire-purchase agreement with the financier was entered into much prior in time, whereafter the agreement of sale between A-2 and the complainant took place, and which was subject to the rights of the financier. It is even otherwise understandable that A-2 could not have passed a better title of the bus to the complainant than that she had aquired for herself under the hire-purchase agreement Though we do not have the advantage of reading the hire-purchase agreement, but as normally drawn it would have contained the clause that in the event of the failure to make payment of installment/s the financier had the right to resume possession of the vehicle. Since the financiers agreement with A-2 contained that clause of resumption of possession, that has to be read, if not specifically provided in the agreement, as part of the sale agreement between A-2 and the complainant. It is, in these circumstances, the financier took possession of the bus from the complainant with the aid of the appellants. Since the financiers agreement with A-2 contained that clause of resumption of possession, that has to be read, if not specifically provided in the agreement, as part of the sale agreement between A-2 and the complainant. It is, in these circumstances, the financier took possession of the bus from the complainant with the aid of the appellants. It cannot thus be said that the appellants, in any way, had committed the offence of theft and that too, with the requisite mens rea and requisite dishonest intention. The assertion of rights and obligations, accruing to the appellants under the aforesaid two agreements, wiped out any dishonest pretence in that regard from which it could be inferred that they had done so with a guilty intention. In this view of the matter, we think that the High Court was in error in upsetting the well-considered judgment of the Court of Session. We thus set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court and acquit the appellants of the charges. They are on bail. Their hail bonds stand cancelled. Fine if already paid, be refunded to the appellants. The appeal is, thus allowed. 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case and also in the light of the ratio decided by the Supreme Court, I have no doubt in my mind in holding that the entire criminal proceeding and the order of cognizance is vitiated in law and is amount to abuse of the process of law. 12. For the reasons aforesaid, this application is allowed and the entire criminal proceeding as also the order of cognizance is set aside.