- (1.) Grievance of the petitioners is that in the complaint dated July 5th, 2005 lodged by them with the officer-in-charge of Maidan Police Station, Kolkata no step was taken by the police authorities to make investigation, though allegations made in it made out a case of commission of cognizable offences by the respondents in this writ petition.
(2.) The admitted facts are these. The petitioners purchased a motor vehicle with the finance provided by the respondent private financier. Prescribing the terms and conditions for granting and taking loan parties duly executed an agreement, and in terms : of provision thereof, on failure to repay the loan amount, the financier would have been entitled to exercise the right of taking possession of the vehicle in question. The petitioners did not repay the loan according to terms and conditions of the agreement. As a result, on July 15, 2005 respondent-financier took possession of the vehicle. At the ; time of taking possession an inventory list was duly prepared. It was signed by the driver of the vehicle and also by the agent of the respondent-financier. Thereafter the petitioners lodged a complaint dated July 15th, 2005 alleging that the respondents took possession of the vehicle in question.
(3.) Advocate for the petitioners argues that although provisions of the agreement gave right to the respondents to take possession of the vehicle on failure to repay the loan amount by the petitioners according to terms and conditions of the agreement, in view of the single bench decision of this Court in Amal Kumar Bose v. State of West Bengal reported at 2003 (3) Cal HN 16 : (AIR 2004 Cal 148), the respondents were not entitled to take possession of the vehicle, because the relevant provision of the agreement lost its force. Counsel says that after considering a similar provision in an identical agreement, the judgment relied on was given.;