ORDER Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party as well as learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. This application is directed against the order dated 28.01.2011 passed in Complaint Case No.25 of 2008, whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 392 /34 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken as against the petitioners pursuant to the order dated 13.05.2009 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Lohardaga in Criminal Revision No.4 of 2009. 3. It is the case of the complainant that he had taken loan of Rs.7,17,000/- from the petitioner's company for purchasing a truck which he had purchased. In course of time, while the driver was returning to Ranchi after unloading the materials, the petitioners No.2 and 3 intercepted the truck bearing Registration No.JH-08 5765 and forcibly took it away. On the next day, the complainant came to the Finance Company and met with the petitioner No.1 and requested him to release the truck, but he refused to release the said truck. 4. On such allegation, the complaint case was lodged which was registered as Complaint Case No.25 of 008 [T.R. No.599 of 2011]. On such complaint, the Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code as against the two persons. 5. Being aggrieved with that order, the complainant moved to the revisional court and the revisional court set aside the order and passed an order for taking cognizance of the offence afresh. Pursuant to that the court took cognizance of the offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code which order is under challenge. 6. Mr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that admittedly the case is of hire-purchase agreement. In that event, if the truck on account of non-payment of the premium is repossessed, no offence is made out either of theft or robbery. 7. Further, it was submitted that the matter has been compromised and a joint compromise petition by way of interlocutory application bearing its No.1571 of 2012 has been filed and on this ground also the order taking cognizance is fit to be quashed. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2 also admitted that the matter has been compromised. 9. Further, it was submitted that the matter has been compromised and a joint compromise petition by way of interlocutory application bearing its No.1571 of 2012 has been filed and on this ground also the order taking cognizance is fit to be quashed. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2 also admitted that the matter has been compromised. 9. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record it does appear from the complaint petition that the complainant had taken loan for purchasing the truck. Obviously there appears to be a case of hire-purchase contract. According to the petitioners, the truck had been repossessed by the Financier on account of default being made by the complainant and in such situation, if the truck is repossessed, no offence is made out under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, in view of the decision rendered in a case of Charanjit Singh Chadha and Ors Vs. Sudhir Mehra reported in 2001[7] SCC 417. Moreover, the parties got the matter compromised,. In that event, the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No.25 of 2008 including the order taking cognizance dated 28.01.2011 is hereby, set aside, so far the above-named petitioners are concerned. 10. In the result, this application stands allowed. 11. Accordingly, I.A. No.1571 of 2012 stands allowed and disposed of.