JUDGMENT : 1. Through the medium of instant petition filed under Section 561-A Cr.P.C, petitioner seeks quashment of order dated 25th March, 2014, passed by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Doda, by which the Court has released the vehicle bearing Registration No.JK02AP-4885 (Tempo Traveller) in favour of respondent No. 3 and rejected the application of the petitioner for release of vehicle in question in favour of the petitioner Company in spite of the admitted fact that the petitioner is the real owner of the said vehicle. 2. The facts in nutshell are that the petitioner-company is a Finance Company registered under the Companies Act and deals with the business of financing for the purchase of the vehicle by granting the vehicle loan with term repayment having its Head Office at Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai and Branch Offices all over the country and number of such branches are operating within the territorial limits of the State of Jammu & Kashmir. The petitioner-Company is a legal entity and, thus, can sue and be sued. The respondent No.3 approached the petitioner-Company in the month of May, 2010 and requested for obtaining term loan for the purchase of the vehicle. The petitioner-Company accepted the proposal of the respondent No.3 and provided credit facility of Rs. 5,75,000/- and consequently, loan cum hypothecation Agreement No.1198451 was executed on 28.05.2010 between the petitioner-Company and respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 became wilful and intentional defaulter and consequently, the matter was referred to the sole arbitrator and the Sole Arbitrator has passed the award dated 24.11.2012 (Annexure-B) in favour of the petitioner-Company. 3. It has been stated in the instant petition that on 12.02.2014, the employees of the petitioner-Company approached the respondent No. 3 and asked him to surrender the vehicle, which the respondent No.3 agreed that the employees of the petitioner-Company took the custody of the vehicle in question with the consent of the respondent No. 3 and the employees of the petitioner-Company informed the SHO, Police Station, Doda about the factum of repossessing of the vehicle. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 cooked up a false and frivolous story and filed a complaint in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Doda. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 cooked up a false and frivolous story and filed a complaint in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Doda. Initially, the police of Police Station, Doda enquired the matter and vide report dated 17.02.2014 that the allegations leveled in the complaint are false and frivolous and further reported that the respondent No.3 is a defaulter. Thereafter, since the matter has been referred to the Police of Police Station, Doda by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Doda under section 156 (3) Cr. P.C and, therefore, the police left with no other option but to register the case and the same was registered on 23.02.2014 vide FIR No.33/2014 for the commission of offences punishable under Section 323, 342, 504, 506, 382 RPC in which petitioner also arrayed as one of the accused. Thereafter, the petitioner-Company on demand, gave the vehicle in question to the Police and the Police seized the vehicle. The petitioner-Company filed an application for release of vehicle and similarly the respondent No.3 also filed an application for release of vehicle in his favour and these two applications were clubbed by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Doda and decided the same by a common order dated 25.03.2014. By the medium of the impugned order, the Court below allowed the application filed by the respondent No. 3 for release of vehicle and rejected the application filed by the petitioner-Company. 4. The petitioner has assailed the aforesaid impugned order, passed by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Doda, inter alia, on the following grounds:- (A) That impugned order is against law and facts and, thus, deserves to be quashed. (B) That the court below has failed to appreciate the fact that the petitioner-Company is the real owner of the vehicle and is entitled to the custody of the vehicle. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. (C) That the Court below has failed to appreciate that the respondent No. 3 is a wilful defaulter and the award by the sole arbitrator has been passed against the respondent No. 3 and its guarantor and the award has culminated into a decree and. Thus, it is only the Petitioner-Company, who is entitled to the custody of the vehicle. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. Thus, it is only the Petitioner-Company, who is entitled to the custody of the vehicle. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. (D) That the Court below has failed to appreciate the fact that the FIR is totally false and frivolous and the employees of the petitioner-Company has been falsely implicated in the case by the respondent only with the oblique motive to harass the petitioner-Company and to create hurdles in the recovery of the loan amount and the vehicle in question. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. (E) That the Court below has failed to apply the settled proposition of law in the instant case while deciding the application for release of vehicle. The law is well settled by a catena of judgments that under hire purchase laws, the hirer can only become the owner of the vehicle by exercising the option to purchase the vehicle after paying the entire amount due and till that financier is the owner. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. (F) That the impugned order is also not sustainable in the eyes of law on the ground that the Court below has failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent No. 3 has been directed to handover the custody of the vehicle to the finance company in the award dated 24th November, 2012, which has not culminated into a decree of the civil court. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. (G) That the Court below has failed to appreciate that the law recognizes the financier, as the real owner of the vehicle till the entire loan amount along with interest and all other dues have to be paid by the borrower to the financier and, thus, the law always recognizes the real owner as the better claimant to take the custody of vehicle. Moreover, from the conduct of the respondent No. 3, it clearly transpires that he is a wilful defaulter and has also falsely implicated the employees of the petitioner-Company in the FIR, which fact has also been admitted by the Police vide report submitted by the Police to the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Doda and, thus, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and the custody of the vehicle deserves to be given to the petitioner-Company. 5. I have considered the contention of petitioner. 6. I have also gone through the order impugned. 5. I have considered the contention of petitioner. 6. I have also gone through the order impugned. From the perusal of order impugned, it is evident that court below has held that although instalments of vehicle were due but petitioner has not proceeded under law to recover the possession of vehicle, so vehicle was required to be released in favour of respondent, the registered owner. The court below has further held that although there was Arbitration award, but same has to be executed according to law. 7. These findings of court below are correct, because financier cannot proceed to recover the possession of financed article as per his own choice; he has to adopt due course to recover the possession. Rule of law has always supremacy, no one can forcibly takes possession of goods even though these are hypothecated except adopting due course of law. 8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in ICICI Bank Ltd. vs. Prakash Kaur and others [ (2007) 2 SCC 711 ] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to lay down as under: "16. Before we part with this matter, we wish to make it clear that we do not appreciate the procedure adopted by the Bank in removing the vehicle from the possession of the writ petitioner. The practice of hiring recovery agents, who are musclemen, is deprecated and needs to be discouraged. The Bank should resort to procedure recognised by law to take possession of vehicles in cases where the borrower may have committed default in payment of the instalments instead of taking resort to strong-arm tactics. In conclusion, it can be said that we are governed by the rule of law in the country. The recovery of loans or seizure of vehicles could be done only through legal means. The banks cannot employ goondas to take possession by force.” 9. In Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd. vs. S. Vijayalaxmi [ (2012)1 SCC 1 , it is held that-Till such time as the ownership is not transferred to the purchaser, the hirer normally continues to be the owner of the goods, but that does not entitle him on the strength of the agreement to take back possession of the vehicle by use of force. The guidelines which had been laid down by Reserve Bank of India as well as the appellant Bank itself, in fact, support and make a virtue of such conduct. The guidelines which had been laid down by Reserve Bank of India as well as the appellant Bank itself, in fact, support and make a virtue of such conduct. If any action is taken for recovery in violation of such guidelines or the principles as laid down by this Court, such an action cannot but be struck down. 10. In view of above, this petition is dismissed.