JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. These criminal miscellaneous petitions have been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of CrPC with the prayer for quashing and setting aside the order dated 18.10.2012 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih in Complaint Case no. 1083 of 2012 (T.R. No. 408 of 2014) whereby and whereunder, learned Magistrate, found the prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 406 , 420 and 384 of IPC. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner purchased the truck after taking finance from the petitioner of CrMP no. 3189 of 2018 but defaulted in payment of the three installments and consequent upon that, the petitioner of CrMP no. 3026 of 2014 and the co-accused persons, re-possessed the vehicle in terms of the clause 17 and 18 of the Loan-cum- Hypothecation –cum Guarantee agreement entered into between the petitioner and the informant, the copy of which is kept at page 42-50 of the CrMP no. 3189 of 2018. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih on the basis of the complaint, statement of the complainant on Solemn Affirmation and the statement of the Enquiry Witnesses, found the prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 406 , 420 and 384 of IPC. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner of CrMP no. 3189 of 2018 submits that the petitioner is not an accused in the said case but the accused no. 6 of the complaint no. 1083 of 2012 is the “Prabandhak of Tata Motors Finance Limited” but there is no such post as “Prabandhak” in Tata Motors Finance Limited. Learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench in the case of S. Nagarajan vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, 2020 SCC OnLine Jhar 1932, submits that therein a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held that a designation, cannot be an accused person in a criminal case, as a post or designation is not a juridical person. It is then submitted that, in view of the non-existent post, and as cognizance has been taken against a post, which is not even a juridical person, the prayer as made in these criminal miscellaneous petitions be allowed. 5. It is then submitted that, in view of the non-existent post, and as cognizance has been taken against a post, which is not even a juridical person, the prayer as made in these criminal miscellaneous petitions be allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Anup Sarmah vs. Bhola Nath Sharma and Others, (2013) 1 SCC 400 submits that in para 4 of that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India relied upon its own judgment in the case of Sardar Trilok Singh and Ors. Vs. Satya Deo Tripathi, (1979) 4 SCC 396 wherein in the facts of that case, as the truck was taken in possession by the financer in terms of the Hire Purchase Agreement, consequent upon there was default in making the payment of instalments by the complainant of that case and the case was instituted involving the offences punishable under Sections 395, 468, 465, 471, 120 B/ 34 of IPC, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the proceedings initiated were clearly an abuse of the process of the court and the dispute involved was purely of civil nature and quashed the same. It is then submitted that in the case of K.A. Mathai @ Babu vs. Kora Bibbikutty and Another, (1996) 7 SCC 212 , a similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by holding that in case of default in payment of instalment, the financer will have the right to resume possession of the vehicle and whether the financer’s agreement does contain that clause of resumption of possession, that has to be read. Similarly in the case of Charanjit Singh Chadha and Others vs. Sudhir Mehra, (2001) 7 SCC 417 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that the recovery of possession of the vehicle, by the financer as per the terms of the Hire Purchase Agreement does not amount to criminal offence, hence, it is submitted that as admittedly the complainant defaulted in payment of the instalments , so no illegality has been committed by the petitioner, and at best, the dispute between the parties is a civil dispute, hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 6. Learned Addl. PP and learned counsel for the opp. Party no. 6. Learned Addl. PP and learned counsel for the opp. Party no. 2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioners and submit that the petitioners have committed criminal breach of trust and have also cheated the complainant, hence, it is submitted that both the offences for which, the prima facie case has been found by learned Magistrate is made out against the petitioners. It is lastly submitted that these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions being without any merit, be dismissed. 7. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through materials available in the record, so far as the CrMP no. 3189 of 2018 is concerned, the undisputed fact remains that there is no designation “Prabhandak” in the petitioner company of CrMP no. 3189 of 2018, so learned CJM, after finding the prima facie case, has ordered for issuance of notices to the accused persons , of the case named in the complaint, without mentioning their names. Perusal of the record reveals that the proposed accused persons no. 6 is “Prabandhak” of the petitioner company and there is no allegation against any “Prabandhak” of the petitioner company having done any act, deed, thing or omission in the entire complaint or the statement of the complainant on Solemn Affirmation or statement of the enquiry witnesses. 8. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of this criminal proceeding against the “Prabandhak” of the petitioner company of CrMP no. 3189 of 2018, will amount to abuse of process of law, therefore, the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order dated 18.10.2012 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih in Complaint Case no. 1083 of 2012 (T.R. No. 408 of 2014) is quashed and set aside against the accused no. 6 of the complaint being “Prabandhak” of the petitioner company of CrMP no. 3189 of 2018. 9. So far as the petitioner CrMP no. 3026 of 2014 is concerned, as has already been mentioned above in the foregoing paragraph of this judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has repeatedly held in the case of Sardar Trilok Singh and Ors. Vs. 3189 of 2018. 9. So far as the petitioner CrMP no. 3026 of 2014 is concerned, as has already been mentioned above in the foregoing paragraph of this judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has repeatedly held in the case of Sardar Trilok Singh and Ors. Vs. Satya Deo Tripathi (supra), K.A. Mathai @ Babu vs. Kora Bibbikutty and Another (supra) and Charanjit Singh Chadha vs. Sudhir Mehra (supra) that recovery of the possession of the vehicle by the financer as per the terms of Hire Purchase Agreement does not amount to criminal offence. Now coming to the facts of the case, it is the admitted case of the complainant that he defaulted in payment of the instalments of the loan in terms of Hire Purchase Agreement of the vehicle, hence, the vehicle has been repossessed by the financier and except that, there is no allegation against the petitioner of CrMP no. 3026 of 2014. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner of CrMP no. 3026 of 2014, will amount to abuse of process of law, therefore, the order dated 18.10.2012 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih in Complaint Case no. 1083 of 2012 (T.R. No. 408 of 2014) is quashed and set aside against the petitioner of CrMP No. 3026 of 2014 also. 10. In the result, these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are allowed to the aforesaid extent only.