ORDER S.N. Satyanarayana, J. 1. Though this matter has come up for admission, with the consent of Counsel appearing for both the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. Petitioners 1 and 2 herein are accused 1 and 2 in Crime No. 155 of 2013 of Magadi Road Police Station and petitioner 3 is the Finance Company in which petitioners 1 and 2 are said to be working as Collection Coordinator and Assistant Manager Collection. The FIR in Crime No. 155 of 2013 is based on a complaint which is filed by second respondent herein with reference to alleged theft of cash in a sum of Rs. 70,000/- and certain documents of title of a vacant site said to have been kept in the glove compartment (dicky) of vehicle, on 10-5-2013 when the said vehicle was seized pursuant to an arbitral award passed with reference to recovery of loan due by its borrower, one Mr. Mohan Chikkanna. 2. The fact that the vehicle which is subject-matter of complaint, namely Honda Activa bearing registration No. KA-02 HM-1067 was purchased by one Mr. Mohan Chikkanna under hire purchase basis from the third petitioner is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that petitioners 1 and 2 are employees of third petitioner-Company from whom the vehicle was taken on hire purchase by Mr. Mohan Chikkanna. The case of complainant is that he had borrowed the said vehicle from Mr. Mohan Chikkanna for his personal use and the said vehicle was taken away by the employees of third petitioner and a boy who was engaged for the said purpose is said to have stolen the cash and documents, which was kept in the glove compartment (dicky) of vehicle, as could be seen from the complaint dated 23-5-2013. Based on that, FIR is registered in Crime No. 115 of 2013 of Magadi Road Police Station. 3. Admittedly the complaint is received on 23-5-2013, after 13 days from the date of alleged incident. In the said proceedings, complaint is registered against first and second petitioners and also the owner of the vehicle and as well as seizing person, who are not referred to by name. With this, summons is issued to petitioners 1 to 3 for their appearance before the Police. In the said proceedings, complaint is registered against first and second petitioners and also the owner of the vehicle and as well as seizing person, who are not referred to by name. With this, summons is issued to petitioners 1 to 3 for their appearance before the Police. Hence the present petition is filed seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in Crime No. 155 of 2013 of Magadi Road Police Station within the limits of III ACMM Court, Bangalore. 4. Heard the Counsel for petitioner. Perused the order impugned. On going through the complaint dated 23-5-2013, it is clearly seen that allegation is against a person who seized the vehicle on behalf of petitioners 1 to 3 is said to have committed the theft of removing the money that was kept in the glove compartment of the vehicle along with the documents of immovable property. The name of the person, who is said to have committed the theft is not mentioned in the complaint and it is also seen that the complaint was lodged after nearly 13 days from the date of alleged offence and incidentally there is no reference to number of immovable property, whose document was stolen by aforesaid person. 5. Prima facie materials available on record give an indication that the complaint which is filed by respondent 2, who is not even the owner of the vehicle is in the manner of retaliatory action for seizing the vehicle of Mr. Mohan Chikkanna, friend of respondent 2. Even assuming that the complainant and his friend, Mr. Mohan Chikkanna has any objection for petitioner-company seizing the vehicle in question, the Apex Court in its judgment in the matter of Charanjit Singh Chadha and Others v. Sudhir Mehra AIR 2001 SC 3721 : (2001) 7 SCC 417 : 2001 SCC (Cri.) 1557 : 2001 Cri. L.J. 4255 (SC) : 2001 (4) Crimes 26 (SC), while discussing the right of leasing firm in repossessing the vehicle under hire purchase has held as under: "Leasing firm can re-possess defaulter's car given on hire purchase agreement as per terms of the agreement and it does not amount to any criminal offence like criminal breach of trust, cheating, theft, dacoity criminal house trespass or their abetment or conspiracy". Similar view is also taken in another manner between Anup Sarmah v. Bhola Nath Sharma and Others (2013) 1 SCC 400 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri.) 518 : 2012 (120) AIC 223 (SC), wherein at para 5, it is held as under: "However, reversing the said judgment, this Court held that proceedings initiated were clearly an abuse of process of the Court. The dispute involved was purely of civil nature, even if the allegations made by the complainant were substantially correct. Under the hire purchase agreement, the financier had made the payment of huge money and he was in fact the owner of the vehicle. The terms and conditions incorporated in the agreement gave rise in case of dispute only to civil rights and in such a case, the Civil Court must decide as to what was the meaning of those terms and conditions". 6. In that view of the matter, this Court find that there is no material available on record to sustain the complaint which is registered in Crime No. 155 of 2013 of Magadi Road Police, with which the police can investigate into the offence which is not even committed by the petitioners 1 and 2, who are the employees of petitioner 3. Accordingly the petition is allowed. The proceeding initiated by the complainant in Crime No. 155 of 2013 of Magadi Road Police Station, is hereby quashed. Petition Allowed