JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal misc. petition under section 482 CrPC has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for quashing the FIR No.409/2014 dated 05.10.2014 lodged at Police Station, Sanchore, District Jalore for the offences punishable under sections 420, 406, 412, 419, 424, 440, 384, 427 and 120-B IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is the Manager of Indusind Bank Ltd. of Basni Branch, Jodhpur and has not committed any offence, however, the complainant has falsely named the petitioner as accused in the impugned FIR. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that a Truck- Trailer bearing registration No.RJ-19-GD-3686 was sold under the hire-purchase agreement by the Indusind Bank Ltd. to the complainant and when the complainant has failed to pay the monthly instalments, the said truck was seized by the Bank authorities. It is submitted that under a hire-purchase agreement, if a financier seizes a property, then such action of seizing does not amount to criminal offence, and the criminal proceedings initiated at the instance of the loanee are liable to be quashed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance on decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sardar Trilok Singh & Ors. v. Satya Deo Tripathi, 1979 SCC (Cri) 987 , K.A.Mathai @ Babu & Anr. v. Kora Bibbikutty & Anr., 1997 Cr.L.R. (SC) 621 , Charanjit Singh Chadha & Ors. v. Sudhir Mehra, (2001) 7 SCC 417 , Anup Sarmah v. Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors. [Special Leave Petition (Cri.) No.8907/2009] decided on 30.10.2012 , and of this Court in Dinesh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, 1999 Cr.L.R. [Raj.] 246 and Indus-Ind Bank Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., S.B.Cr.Misc.Pet. No.294/2012 decided on 21.08.2013 , has prayed that the impugned FIR ldoged against the petitioner may kindly be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as the complainant-respondent No.2, present in person, have argued that the petitioner, along with other accused-persons has hatched a criminal conspiracy and extorted money from the complainant by illegally seizing the truck in question from the complainant, though he has deposited all the instalments. It is also contended that when the truck was in possession of the Bank, certain valuable property of the truck such as tyres, tarpaulin, diesel and documents i.e. original registration certificate, insurance papers, fitness and permit have been misappropriated by the accused-persons. It is also contended that when the truck was in possession of the Bank, certain valuable property of the truck such as tyres, tarpaulin, diesel and documents i.e. original registration certificate, insurance papers, fitness and permit have been misappropriated by the accused-persons. It is also contended that from bare reading of the impugned FIR, prima facie case is made out against the petitioner along with other accused-persons, hence, no interference is required to be called for by this Court while exercising powers under section 482 CrPC. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as the complainant have placed reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 and Rupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs) & Anr. v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill & Anr., 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059 and Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638 . 6. Complainant-respondent No.2 has submitted a written complaint in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sanchore alleging therein that he got financed a truck from the Indusind Bank Ltd. The said truck was involved in an accident on 06.09.2013 and was remained in the garage for repairing works for about three months. The complainant has paid monthly instalments on 29.11.2013, 13.12.2013, 13.01.2014, 27.01.2014, 26.02.2014, 21.03.2014 and 30.04.2014. However, on 11.05.2014, the truck was moving towards Mundra Port and when the complainant stopped the truck at Balaji Hotel situated at N.H.15 in Sanchore town for having tea, then suddenly, the accused persons Manoj Sharma and Sachin came there in Bolero vehicle and after breaking the lock of the truck, forcibly took it away and parked it near a hotel. The complainant followed the accused-person Manoj Sharma and Sachin, who asked him to talk to the petitioner, who is working as Branch Manager in Indusind Bank Ltd., Jodhpur, the complainant talked the petitioner, who asked him to come to Jodhpur and deposit the instalments and he would get the vehicle released. The complainant has further stated in the complaint that after reaching Jodhpur, he met with the petitioner and informed him that he has already deposited all the instalments. The petitioner asked him to talk to another accused-person Rajesh Agarwal at Jaipur, who asked him to deposit Rs. 1,50,000/-, which he has also deposited. Again he was asked to deposit Rs. The complainant has further stated in the complaint that after reaching Jodhpur, he met with the petitioner and informed him that he has already deposited all the instalments. The petitioner asked him to talk to another accused-person Rajesh Agarwal at Jaipur, who asked him to deposit Rs. 1,50,000/-, which he has also deposited. Again he was asked to deposit Rs. 3,40,000/-, which he has deposited but despite this, the vehicle has not been released and the accused-persons told him that the vehicle cannot be released. It is also alleged that the accused-persons have extorted the money from the complainant by threatening and giving false promise and the valuables from the vehicle have also been misappropriated. 7. On receiving the above complaint, the concerned Magistrate has sent it for investigation under section 156(3) CrPC to the Police Station and on receiving the same, the police has registered the impugned FIR. 8. It is true that a financier can seize the vehicle on non-payment of monthly instalments under a hire-purchase agreement and such action of the financier does not amount to criminal offence as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above cited decisions. However, in the complaint filed by the complainant, he has specifically alleged that the accused-persons threatened him and also gave him false promise and, thereafter extorted money from him. It has also been alleged in the complaint that valuable property such as tyres, tarpaulin, diesel and documents i.e. registration certificate, insurance papers, fitness and permit have been misappropriated by the accused-persons. 9. In State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has examined the powers of the High Court of quashing a First Information Report lodged in any police station while exercising the power under Article 226 of Constitution of India or under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and has held as under:- "102. 9. In State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has examined the powers of the High Court of quashing a First Information Report lodged in any police station while exercising the power under Article 226 of Constitution of India or under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and has held as under:- "102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers Under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers Under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a noncognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated Under Section 155(2) of the Code. (4) Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a noncognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated Under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R. or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice." 10. In a later decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs) & Anr. v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill & Anr. (supra) has reiterated the above principle. 11. In the instant case, after reading the contents of the FIR in question, it cannot be said that the allegations levelled by the respondent No.2 against the petitioner do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 12. In such circumstances, in the light of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in above referred cases, this Court does not find any merit in this Criminal Misc. Petition as the petitioner has failed to make out a case for quashing the FIR in question. 13. 12. In such circumstances, in the light of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in above referred cases, this Court does not find any merit in this Criminal Misc. Petition as the petitioner has failed to make out a case for quashing the FIR in question. 13. Hence there is no force in this Criminal Misc. Petition and the same is hereby dismissed. 14. Stay petition is also dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******