JUDGEMENT Sheema Ali Khan, J. 1. The Complainant purchased a "Tata Sumo Car" on Hire Purchase Basis. Petitioner No. 4 is the Director of Maurya Motors Limited whereas Petitioner Sourav Sikdar was the Senior Executive in Tata Finance Limited and is now supposedly a Genral Manager, Collection in Sarachi Seurities Limited, posted at Kolkata. Because of non-payment of the E.M.I, amount, the car was seized on 9th November, 2001 and subsequently released on payment of 1.3 lacs on 15th January, 2000. Thereafter the Complainant filed a case alleging that the Petitioners had tried to snatch the Tata Motor Vehicle from him once on 13th September, 2002 and subsequently on 27th January, 2003 when the Complainant was travelling on the Patna-Gaya Highway. It is further alleged that on 12th February, 2003, the Petitioners entered into the house of the Complainant, assaulted him and Sourav Sikdar is said to have taken away Rs. 2,000 from him. 2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that it admitted in the complaint petition that the Complainant had entered into a Hire Purchase Agreement with M/s. Tata Finance and had signed on all the relevant documents. After seizure of the Tata Sumo Car and its release, it is submitted that the Complainant has not paid a single farthing. The main submission is that the allegation that the Senior Executive and Director tried to waylay the Petitioners on the Ganga Bridge or for that matter on Patna-Gaya road is unbelievable and this Court ought to reject the story of the Complainant at the very out set. 3. Notices were issued to the Complainant to appear in this case on more than one occasion, however, nobody appeared to represent the Complainant. After perusing the complaint petition, it becomes apparent to this Court that in fact the Petitioners had entered into a Hire Purchase Agreement in which he paid only Rs. 1.4 lacs for purchase of the vehicle in question. It is said in the complaint petition that the jeep was released in his favour after payment of 2.5 lacs whereas the Petitioners refute this aspect and submit that a sum of Rs. 1.53 lacs were paid to the Finance Company. It also appears from the complaint petition that after payment of the said amount nothing further was paid to the Finance Company. 4. 1.53 lacs were paid to the Finance Company. It also appears from the complaint petition that after payment of the said amount nothing further was paid to the Finance Company. 4. The story that the Complainants car was waylaid on 13th September, 2002 is absolutely unbelievable nor is the story that there was an attempt to snatch the car from him on Patna-Gaya road believable in view of the fact that it cannot be accepted that these Petitioners would know the programme of the Complainant and would be stopping his car so that they may take possession of it. There is the procedure under the law by which the Finance Director could have taken possession of the jeep in question. The allegation that they entered his house and took away a sum of Rs. 2,000 can hardly be believed by any reasonable man given the fact that the Petitioner No. 4 and Sri Sourav Sikdar are quite senior officers in the Company. Likewise the employees can hardly be expected to behave in this manner as it would neither serve the purpose of the Finance Company of Tata Motors to commit such a petty crime in a manner as described above. 5. I, thus, find the entire allegations in the complaint petition to be unbelievable and the complaint case that has been filed is an abuse of the process of law as it would appear that it has been filed to avoid payment of interest to the Finance Company in lieu of loan taken by the Complainant for the purpose of purchasing the jeep. I, therefore, quash the order dated, 24th July, 2003, passed in Complaint Case No. 151 of 2003, Trial No. 990 of 2004, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gaya. 6. These applications are thus, allowed.