JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Mukesh Kumar Mehta, learned counsel for opposite party no.2. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with P.C.R. Case No.45 of 2011, including the order taking cognizance dated 13.03.2014, pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur. 3. The complaint case has been filed alleging therein that the complainant has obtained a truck from Magma Sharachi Finance Limited, Malda at Branch Chhoti Aliganj, Pakur in the year 2008 on a consideration amount of Rs.12,44,156/- bearing Registration No.JH-16A 2882, Engine No.80G62696550, Chassis No.426031GRZ125575. It has been alleged that at the time of truck, the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.2, 47, 432/- on down payment in which there was an advance of two installment @ 40,500/- and also amount of advance for insurance for three years. It has been further alleged that, thereafter, the complainant began to pay monthly installment regularly up to November, 2010. Subsequently, some dispute has been cropped up regarding dues due to which the complainant demanded statements of accounts, the Accused nos.1 and 2 began to play hide and sick game with the complainant, as a result of which the complainant stopped payment of monthly installments due to which on 27th December, 2010 at Ranchi-Gumla Road, near Tower Chowk, Piska More, Jora Mandir under Sukhdeonagar Police Station, Ranchi. The accused nos.1 and 2 along with their muscle men stopped the truck of the complainant at Ranchi- Gumla Road at Ranchi. It has been further alleged that the Manager of Malda and Siliguri branch reveled his identity card and the accused persons brandished arms and compelled the driver and his companion i.e. son of the complainant, namely, Sanjay Singh to get down from the truck and they fled away by taking the truck along with all relevant original papers, cash and goods. It has been further alleged that at the time of taking the said truck the accused persons asked the complainant's son- Sanjay Singh to approach other officials of Magma Sharachi Finance Limited. It has been further alleged that the complainant has deposited all loan amount of the company and only three installments i.e. Rs.1,21,500/- is remain due as because out of total dues, Rs.12,72,417/- has already been paid to the accused no.1. It has been further alleged that the complainant has deposited all loan amount of the company and only three installments i.e. Rs.1,21,500/- is remain due as because out of total dues, Rs.12,72,417/- has already been paid to the accused no.1. It has been further alleged that there is difference between the amount and for which the complainant requested many times to verify the accounts and give entire statements of accounts but the accused persons always refused to give the same with a mala fide intention. By giving the statements of accounts the accused persons have adopted illegal way to realize money which is quite illegal and against the land. It has been further alleged that on 23rd January, 2011 the accused persons along with their staff of Pakur Branch came to the house of the complainant and tried to settle the dispute. The son of the complainant, namely, Sanjay Singh requested the accused persons to return the vehicle immediately as because he is facing loss of Rs.60,000/- per month on which the accused persons became agitated and began exchanged hot words. The son of the complainant, namely, Sanjay Singh protested on which all the accused persons assaulted the complainant's son and on the noise the accused no.1 took a sum of Rs.50,000/- which was kept by the complainant on Chowki for deposit of installment. When the complainant raised Hulla, the witnesses reached to the place of occurrence and saw the occurrence. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant approached the petitioners and showed her willingness to purchase a truck on getting loan from the petitioner-company and thereafter a Hire Purchase Agreement was executed between the petitioner-company and opposite party no.2 on 26.07.2008 for purchase of truck and total cost of the vehicle was Rs.12,44,156/-. He further submits that out of total Rs.12,44,156/-, the petitioner-company had financed a sum of Rs.11,15,000/- to the complainant and the amount receivable from the complainant has been calculated at Rs.14,26,000/- and the same was to be paid in 35 equal monthly installments @ Rs.40,500/-. He also submits that EMI was not paid in terms of the agreement dated 26.07.2008 and after giving prior information to concerned Police Station, the vehicle was repossessed. He also submits that EMI was not paid in terms of the agreement dated 26.07.2008 and after giving prior information to concerned Police Station, the vehicle was repossessed. He further submits that after non-payment of outstanding amount, on 15.01.2011 the petitioner-company had sold the said vehicle through auction sale and the company after receiving the highest bid amount of Rs.8,62,000/- had released the vehicle in favour of the purchaser and opposite party no.2 was informed and the company has also issued a cheque in favour of the complainant after adjusting the balance amount towards installment to be paid by her, which was credited in the account of the complainant. He further submits that the complainant has instituted a case in Consumer Redressal Forum Pakur, which was dismissed. He also submits that the accused persons are named by post and not by way of name and cognizance has also been taken against the post. Thus, the entire criminal proceeding is vitiated. 5. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 by way of referring order taking cognizance submits that the learned court has rightly taken cognizance after discussing the materials on record. There is no illegality in the order taking cognizance. He further submits that the vehicle in question was wrongly sold in auction and that is why the case has been filed. He further submits that he has got no information with regard to the appeal filed against the order passed by the Consumer Forum. On these grounds, he submits that this Court may not interfere. 6. Learned counsel for the State submits that the cognizance has been rightly taken against the petitioner. 7. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record and finds that the vehicle in question was financed by the petitioner-company in favour of opposite party no.2 and total amount of Rs.14 Lakhs and odd has been calculated to be paid and EMI was fixed @ Rs.40,500/- per month. Opposite party no.2 was failed to make payment of EMI and that is why the vehicle was repossessed by the company in view of the Hire Purchase Agreement. Opposite party no.2 was failed to make payment of EMI and that is why the vehicle was repossessed by the company in view of the Hire Purchase Agreement. It is well settled that in an agreement of hire purchase, purchaser remains merely a trustee/bailee on behalf of financer and ownership remains with latter as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anup Sarmah v. Bhola Nath Sharma & others; (2013) 1 SCC 400 ]. Further the cognizance has been taken against the post not against the person. 8. Now the question arises, who is a 'person'. The dictionary meaning of the word ‘person’, as per Chambers Dictionary is “an individual; a living sole; a human being”. Section 11 of the I.P.C. defines the word 'person', which reads as under: “The word “person” includes any Company or Association or body of persons, whether incorporated or not.” 9. In the case of Krishnan & Anr. Versus Krishnaveni & Anr.; [ (1997) 4 SCC 241 ], the Hon’ble Supreme Court, referring to Section 11 of the I.P.C. has held that the word ‘person’ would, therefore, include not only natural person but also juridical person in whatever form designated and whether incorporated or not. Thus, there are two types of persons – natural person and juridical person, i.e., a legal person. This legal person is a subject matter other than a human being to which the law attributes personality. 10. Thus, an offence prima facie has to be committed by a natural person or a juridical person, i.e., body of persons, corporate or association whether incorporated or not, who, by virtue of some statute has been recognized to be a person, i.e., whose personality has been attributed by law. Thus, only these type of persons can be summoned for committing an offence under the I.P.C. 11. Admittedly the case has been lodged against the post and not against the person and cognizance has also been taken. Thus, only these type of persons can be summoned for committing an offence under the I.P.C. 11. Admittedly the case has been lodged against the post and not against the person and cognizance has also been taken. Further for the dispute in question, the complainant has also preferred a case under Consumer Protection Act and she has rightly done so in view of the fact that at best it is the case of deficiency in service and if the case before the Consumer Forum was dismissed, remedy was there to the complainant/opposite party no.2 by way of filing an appeal before the State Consumer Commission and further revision before the National Consumer Redressal Commission. It transpires that for a civil case, criminal case has wrongly been instituted against the petitioner. Further, criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/S. Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. vs Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors.; [ (1998) 5 SCC 749 ]. 12. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with P.C.R. Case No.45 of 2011, including the order taking cognizance dated 13.03.2014, pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur is quashed. 13. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disposed of. 14. Pending I.A., if any, is disposed of.