JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel assisted by Mr. Ajay Sah, the learned vice counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. V.S. Sahay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State and Mr. S.K. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioners in connection with Complaint Case No.230 of 2000, corresponding to T.R.No.823 of 2004 for the offences punishable under sections 417, 427, 120B of the Indian Penal Code including the order dated 20.08.2003 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class at Chatra. 3. That the complainant is the registered owner of Tata truck bearing registration No.BR-13B-0021. The vehicle was purchased on 17.04.1997 through finance. At the time of purchase, the total consideration amount was Rs.4,97,701/- and out of which the complainant paid Rs.1,51,000/- and the rest amount was to be repaid in equal monthly installments. It is further alleged that till 08.07.2000 out of total consideration amount of Rs.4,97,701/- the complainant had paid Rs.4,73,168/- through cash or demand draft. It is further alleged that accused no.2 to 5 happens to be the agent of accused no.1, having impersonated themselves and took away the truck of the complainant along with the driver and conductor on the pretext that the said truck is being seized and is being taken with the help of police. 4. It is further alleged that the vehicle in which accused nos.2 to 5 went did not have registration number and therefore, the complainant along with his brother followed the vehicle and saw that the accused persons fled away by handing over the vehicle to the Officer-incharge of the Bundelkhand Police Station. 5. The complainant narrated the entire story to the Officer in charge of Bundelkhand Police Station whereafter finding the complainant to be the owner of the vehicle the said vehicle was released in favour of the complainant on 17.9.2000. 6. The Cr.M.P. was allowed by the coordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 21.12.2007 and the entire criminal proceeding was quashed and such order was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court by order dated 26.07.2013 has been pleased to set aside the order of this Court and remanded the matter back to decide the matter afresh after hearing the parties. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered that since even the cognizance has not been taken under section 406 IPC and the High Court on the premises of section 406 IPC has proceeded and quashed the proceeding and in that view of the matter the order dated 12.12.2007 was set aside and the matter was remanded back to this Court to decide the matter afresh. 7. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the case has been registered under section 379, 417, 427 and 120B of the IPC and the learned court has been pleased to take congnizance on 20.18.2003 under section 417, 427 and 120B of the IPC. He submits that the case of the petitioners is that the petitioner no.1 happens to be partner of the firm and the petitioner no.2 who happens to be employee of the firm. He submits that there is bald allegation against these petitioners in the complaint petition however the learned Court has taken cognizance under section 417, 427, 120B IPC. He further submits that the vehicle in question was financed by the petitioners and the installment was not paid and pursuant to that the vehicle was re-possessed however subsequently it was released in favour of the O.P.No.2 by police personnel. He further submits that the case is arising out of an agreement and there is an arbitration clause and the arbitration clause has been invoked and the Award has been passed in favour of the petitioners which was challenged before the competent court under section 34 of the Arbitration and Reconciliation Act which was dismissed and pursuant to that, the matter was before the Calcutta High Court and the appeal was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court and the O.P.No.2 has moved before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the matter is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and he submits that in this background the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed. 8. Mr. 8. Mr. S.K.Sharma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2 submits that the O.P.No.2 was paying the EMIs and on certain time he has not been able to pay the EMI and the vehicle in question was taken by the petitioners and this aspect of the matter was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and it has been deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Prakash Kaur and Others, (2007) 2 SCC 711 . Paragraph nos.16 and 28 of the said judgment are quoted below: “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. 28. In conclusion, we say 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. Relying on this judgment, he submits that the criminality is also there and the arbitration clause is there and which has been examined in a separate proceeding. The entire criminal proceeding may not be quashed. In this background he submits that the petition be dismissed. 10. Mr. Sahay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State submits that the learned court after taking into consideration the solemn affirmation of the O.P.No.2 as well as the other witnesses has taken cognizance and there is no illegality in the order taking congnizance and this Court at this stage may not quash the entire criminal proceeding. 11. In view of the above submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record and finds that admittedly the vehicle in question was financed by the petitioners. 11. In view of the above submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record and finds that admittedly the vehicle in question was financed by the petitioners. Annexure-4 is the document which is statement with regard to certain EMIs paid by the O.P.No.2 which suggest that the O.P.no.2 was paying the EMIs, however, on certain times, he has not been able to pay the EMI and pursuant to that, the vehicle in question was re-possessed which is against the mandate of law, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Prakash Kaur and Others(supra) has held that if any act was required to be done which is in accordance of law, the petitioners have got no authority to take the law in its own hand as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in that case. Further on perusal of the complaint petition it transpires that there are allegation against the petitioners of re-possessing the vehicle illegally and in that view of the matter the criminality is made out. There is no doubt arbitration clause is there and if no criminality is involved and the courts are interfering in the matter. However where the criminality and civil action both are made out the courts are very slow in quashing the criminal proceeding. It is well settled that the civil proceeding as well as the criminal proceeding are made out both the proceedings can proceed simultaneously as has been held in the case of “Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd”., (2000) 3 SCC 269 .” 12. In view of the above, the Court has perused the order taking cognizance and finds that the learned court has passed the reasoned order and at the time of taking cognizance the court is only required to look into the prima facie materials and that parameter is fulfilled in the order taking cognizance. No case of interference is made out. Accordingly, Cr.M.P. No. 184 of 2007 is dismissed. 13. Pending petition if any also stands dismissed accordingly.