SHASHI KANT,J. - (1.) Heard Sri Shashi Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Kshtij Pal Singh, Brief Holder for the State of U.P. and Sri Mohd. Yusuf, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2.
(2.) This application under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, 19731973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 11.03.2004, which has been passed in pursuance of the order dated 17.10.2001 and Complaint Case No. 516/9 of 2001, (Harsh Vardhan Tyagi v. D.C.M. Finance Services and others) pending in the Court of C.J.M., Muzaffarnagar, under Sections 391, 403, 406, 420, 504 and 506 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC"), Police Station Kotwali, District Muzaffarnagar.
(3.) Brief facts relating to this case are that: 3. 1. M/s. D.C.M. Financer Services (hereinafter referred to as "applicant company") is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and engaged in the business of financing by way of Hire Purchase towards plants, machinery, equipments and vehicles etc. 3. 2. On 14.04.1997, the opposite party no.2, Sri Harsh Wardhan Tyagi took a loan of Rs. 1,98,000/- for purchase of a car from applicant no. 1, under the Higher Purchase Agreement (Annexure-1). 3. 3. The opposite party no. 2 paid only partial amount of Rs. 93,240/- and failed to pay all installments of loan. Since opposite party no. 2 failed to pay all legally payable amount despite repeated reminders and requests as well as all the cheques issued by him for payment of installments were dishonored for lack of funds in his account. 3. 4. As the cheques issued by the opposite party no. 2 had bounced, the applicants company had initiated complaints against him for bouncing of 16 cheques under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, which are pending adjudication before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Dwarika, New Delhi. 3. 5. Since after payment of Rs. 1,62,540/-, the opposite party no. 2 defaulted in payment of the installments against the loan amount. In these circumstances, on 09.02.2002 the applicants took over the possession of vehicle of opposite party no. 2, with the help of Muzaffarnagar Police. 3. 6. On 22.02.2001, the opposite party no. 2 filed a complaint (Annexure- 2) in which after recording the statement of the complainant/opposite party no. 2 under Section 200 Cr.P.C., 1973 and his witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C., 1973 the Court below found prima facie case against the applicants and summoned them to face trial under Section 392 IPC vide summoning order dated 17.10.2001 (Annexure-3). The Court below has also passed impugned order dated 11.03.2004 issuing warrant against the applicants in pursuance of the summoning order. ;