JUDGMENT : Argumentsheard. 2.This is a petition, under Section 482 of the Code or Criminal Procedure (forshort "the Code"), for quashing of the order dated 9-2-2010 passed by Shri M.K. Tripathi , JMFC, Waidhan , District Singrauli , upona complaint made by respondent No. 2. directing issuance of process against the petitioner, in respect of the offencespunishable under Sections 394, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506-B of the IPC. 3.The petitioner is the Manager of Waidhan Branch ofM/s Shrirum Transport Finance Co. Ltd. with whom therespondent No. 2 had entered in to a hire purchase agreement in respect of a 10-wheeler Hi va (Tipper),subsequently registered as MP-53/H.A. 0141 and financed by M/s Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd., Branch at Waidhan . The vehicle met with an accident on 23-8-08 and therefore, some of theinstallments could not be paid. 4.Clause 6 (b) of the agreement was couched to these terms : "6. Shriram's Right on Default :- Inthe event of the Borrower committing any act of default, as aforesaid, then,notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein contained, Shriram shall be entitled at its absolute discretion, to inter alia : (b)Repossession of Asset : To take possession of the hypothecated assets from whereso ever it may be and remove the hypothecated asset including all accessories,body work and fittings and for the said purpose, it shall be lawful for Shriram or Shriram authorised representatives, servants officers and agentsforthwith or at any time and without notice to the Borrower(s) to enter uponthe premises, or garage or go down where the hypothecated assets shall be lyingor kept and to take possession or recover or receive the same and if necessaryto break open such place of storage; Shriram will bewithin its rights to use a tow-van to carry away the assets. Any damage to theland or building caused by removal or the asset shall be the soleresponsibility of the Borrowers)." 5.The complaint contained the following allegations : - On 22-3-09 , the petitioner,without consent of respondent No. 2, took over possession of the vehicle anddespite request made by respondent No. 2 for grant of opportunity to depositthe remaining installments, did not restore the custody of the vehicle. 6.As explained by the Supreme Court in Charanjit Singh Chadha Vs . 6.As explained by the Supreme Court in Charanjit Singh Chadha Vs . Sudhir Mehra , AIR 2001 SC 3721 , repossession of vehicle bythe financer in default of payment of installment as per terms of agreementwould not attract criminal liability for the offence of cheating ortheft/robbery. Moreover, there was no sufficient evidence justifying issuanceof process in respect of their offences. 7.It is true that the Apex Court in ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Prakash Kaur , (2007) 2 SCC 711 , has deprecated the procedureresorted to by the lending bank/financial institution for recovering possessionof the vehicles taken on hire-purchase basis forcibly on the ground that theborrower has defaulted in paying certain installments, but, in the presentcase, possession of the vehicle was taken over only alter due service ofcorresponding notice dated 2-3-2009 on the respondent No. 2. The complaint wasobviously filed only to harass the petitioner and wreak personal vengeance. 8.To sum up, even if the allegations made against the petitioner in thecomplaint, are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, nooffence would be made out. As such, the case against the petitioner falls undercategory (1) and (7) of the cases, as enumerated in State of Haryana Vs. bajan Lal , AIR 1992 SC 604 , attracting inference under theinherent powers. 9.The petition, therefore stands allowed. The orderdated 9-2-2010 (supra), andthe consequent proceedings against the petitioner are hereby quashed.