JUDGMENT : 1. In this application the petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Complaint Case No. 248 of 2000 including the order dated 16.07.2001 passed by the learned A.C.J.M., Koderma whereby and where under cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 323, 504, 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. A complaint case was instituted in which it was alleged that the complainant had purchased a truck from the petitioner no. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner no. 1 runs a business of vehicle financing and has two Companies in the name and style of M. L. Gupta and Others and J. J. Leasing and High Rind Ltd. It has been alleged that the total amount agreed for purchase of the truck was Rs. 3,30,000/- with six new tyres and without new tyres the same was fixed on 2,80,000/-. An hire purchase agreement was entered into and an advance of Rs. 40,000/- was paid and on demand a further amount of Rs. 79,000/- and 9500/- were paid after which one truck bearing registration no. WB 11 1851 was handed over to the complainant and the said truck stood in the name of petitioner no. 1. Subsequently, a further amount were deposited but the ownership of the vehicle was not transferred in the name of the complainant. Later on it came to the knowledge of the father of the complainant that the vehicle was financed from the J. J. Leasing and High Rind Ltd. in the name of petitioner no. 1 and even on payment of certain amount by draft and cash in the name of the Company the papers were not transferred. It is alleged that a Panchayati was held and subsequently the father of the complainant got the vehicle registered in the name of the complainant as well as one of his brother. However, on 28.10.1999 the accused persons got the vehicle seized and had kept at Nawada, Police Station and thereafter it was released in favour of the accused no. 5. Subsequently, the complainant could come to know that the accused persons had already obtained an order from the City Civil and Sessions Courts, Sialdah passed in Misc. Case No. 1557 of 1998. 5. Subsequently, the complainant could come to know that the accused persons had already obtained an order from the City Civil and Sessions Courts, Sialdah passed in Misc. Case No. 1557 of 1998. After the complaint case was registered as Complaint Case No. 248 of 2002, an enquiry was conducted under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. pursuant to which cognizance was taken by the learned A.C.J.M., Koderma on 16.07.2001 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 323, 504, 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Heard Mr. Krishna Murari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Dipak Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2. 4. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 have both died during the pendency of the proceeding and which has been brought on record through a supplementary affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the entire allegation has been levelled against the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 and there is no allegations with respect to petitioner nos. 3 and 4 in the complaint petition. Learned counsel has submitted that no incident had taken place in the district of Koderma and in the absence of any cause of action at Koderma the learned cognizance taking court was precluded from taking cognizance and summoning the petitioner to face the trial. It has also been submitted that the entire dispute is civil in nature as an hire purchase agreement was entered into between the father of the complainant with M. L. Gupta and others. Learned counsel submits that an arbitration agreement was also in existence. It has been submitted that the father of the opposite party no. 2 did not make payment of the installments pursuant to the hire purchase agreement and having no option a case was filed for appointment of receiver. It has been submitted that pursuant to the order dated 12.06.1998 passed by the City Civil and Sessions Judge one Sri Murari Chakrabarty was appointed as a receiver and since the father of the complainant had defaulted in making payment of the installments the agents of the receiver had seized the vehicle which was subsequently released by Nawada, Police Station in favour of the accused no. 5. 5. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that only to pressurize the petitioners the complaint case has been instituted giving it a tinge of criminality although the background leading to institution of the complaint case suggests otherwise. 5. Per contra, Mr. Dipak Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2, has submitted that the petitioner nos. 3 and 4 cannot be absolved from their criminal liability as admittedly they were the partners of the Company with whom the agreement was entered into. It has been submitted that the complaint petition clearly reveals that there was dishonest intention on the part of the accused persons to allure the complainant and his father to deposit a huge amount by suppressing the material facts and subsequently the vehicle was seized on the pretext of non-payment of the installment as agreed upon. It has also been submitted that a Panchayati was held on 30.08.2010 wherein accused persons had made themselves present and in such view of the matter the territorial jurisdiction of the learned court at Koderma becomes apparent. Learned counsel thus submits that since a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner nos. 3 and 4 the present application is liable to be dismissed. 6. The dispute as it seems relates to purchase of a truck and entering into a hire purchase agreement in which the father of the complainant was one of the parties. The vehicle was subsequently seized by the agents of the receiver on account of non-payment of installments arising out of the said hire purchase agreement and the vehicle which was kept at Nawada, Police Station was subsequently released in favour of the accused no. 5. Moreover, so far as the petitioner nos. 3 and 4 are concerned, their involvement from the very initiation of the transaction seems to be minimal as specific allegations have been levelled only against the petitioner nos. 1 and 2. 7. In the case of Charanjit Singh Chadha And Others vs. Sudhir Mehra reported in (2001) 7 SCC 417 while considering whether recovery of possession in terms of the hire purchase agreement would amount to criminal offence or not it was held as follows:- “17. The hire-purchase agreement in law is an executory contract of sale and confers no right in rem on the hirer until the conditions for transfer of the property to him have been fulfilled. The hire-purchase agreement in law is an executory contract of sale and confers no right in rem on the hirer until the conditions for transfer of the property to him have been fulfilled. Therefore, the repossession of goods as per the term of the agreement may not amount to any criminal offence. The agreement (Annexure P-1) specifically gave authority to the appellants to repossess the vehicle and their agents have been given the right to enter any property or building wherein the motor vehicle was likely to be kept. Under the hire-purchase agreement, the appellants have continued to be the owners of the vehicle and even if the entire allegations against them are taken as true, no offence was made out against them. The learned Single Judge seriously flawed in his decision and failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by not quashing the proceedings initiated against the appellants. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment. The complaint and any other proceedings initiated pursuant to such complaint are quashed.” para 17 8. The same view was followed in the case of Chandra Kant Gopalka vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. Reported in [2007 (3) J C R 443 (Jhr)] which held as follows:- “8. No doubt, taking of repossession cannot be visited by force or by any unlawful methods and can be resorted to only by due process of law, but where the facts and circumstances of the case do not indicate that any force was applied, or any unlawful method was used, no criminal liability can be attracted against the financer for taking repossession of the vehicle. The contention of the petitioner that he had issued repeated notices to the complainant demanding repayment of the dues with prior warning that the petitioner would be compelled to exercise his right under the contract for taking repossession of the hire purchased vehicle, has not been denied by the opposite party No. 2 in his counter affidavit. It is therefore apparent that repossession of the hired vehicle was taken by the petitioner only after resorting to legal methods permissible in exercise of his rights under the contract entered into by and between him and the complainant. It is therefore apparent that repossession of the hired vehicle was taken by the petitioner only after resorting to legal methods permissible in exercise of his rights under the contract entered into by and between him and the complainant. It appears that the opposite party No. 2 was ill advised to lodge a criminal proceeding by filing a complainant and the element of mala fide in the filing of the complaint is clearly discernible from the facts and circumstances of the case. The plea that the accused including the petitioner had caused theft of the complainants vehicle is without any basis, as the petitioner took repossession of the vehicle in exercise of his right under the agreement. Such act on the part of the petitioner does not amount to theft as the essential element of dishonest intention is lacking.” 9. The hire purchase agreement wherein M. L. Gupta and others has been shown as owners also includes an agreement for arbitration in which the father of the complainant is a signatory. A case was instituted before the City Civil and Sessions Court at Kolkata being Misc. No. 1557 of 1998 in which a direction was given to appoint receiver for seizure of the vehicle and pursuant to the same a receiver was appointed and he in turn appointed agents who had subsequently seized the vehicle from the possession of the petitioner. The vehicle was subsequently released by Nawada, Police Station and as has been stated by the petitioners the same is in the safe custody of the receiver. 10. The dispute, therefore, leading to seizure of the vehicle appears to be civil in nature. Even otherwise the petitioner nos. 3 and 4 were the partners and no specific allegation has been made against the petitioner nos. 3 and 4. 11. In view of what has been stated above, I find sufficient merit in this application. Accordingly, this application is allowed the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Complaint Case No. 248 of 2000 including the order dated 16.07.2001 passed by the learned A.C.J.M., Koderma is, hereby, quashed and set aside.