- (1.) Since both these Revisional Applications which arose out of C.R. 68/2000 have been initiated by the self same complainant in these Applications, this common order disposes of the same.
(2.) Shri Debashis Roy, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner instructed by Shri Paritosh Sinha and Shri Amitava Mitra had filed a written notes of argument to supplement his oral submissions in C.R.R. No. 1274 of 2000 and submitted that the dispute between the Petitioner No. 1 Ashoke Leyland Finance Ltd. and the opposite party No. 2 - was basically, the dispute between the financier and hirer which was not only civil in nature; but exercise of jurisdiction by a Criminal Court in such a dispute would be abuse of the process of the Court.
(3.) In support of his contention he referred to the decision of K.A. Mathai @Babu and Anr. v. Kora Bibbikutty and Anr., 1996 7 SCC 212 and submitted that the ratio of the decision and the fact situation of the case fitted with each other and since the complainant failed to make instalment the Petitioner No. 1 Ashoke Leyland Finance Ltd. and the Petitioner No. 2 its Area Officer as financiers had right to resume possession.;