- (1.) By the revisional application dated 20.07.2005 under section 482 of the Cr. PC quashing has been prayed for in respect of a proceeding being Jagaddal P. S. Case No. 173 dated 16.06.2005 under section 392/34/420/120B of the IPC on the grounds as would be found in the subsequent paragraphs. The complainant who is O. P. No. 2 herein lodged an FIR with the Jagaddal P. S. on 16.06.2005 alleging the following incident: The complainant approached the petitioner a financier for purchase of a vehicle being WB-23A-1509 and an agreement was entered into by and between the parties on 26.07.2001 for acquisition of the vehicle for Rs. 4,05,262/-. The petitioner No. 1 (accused No. 1) was the financier while accused No. 2 (not the petitioner herein) is the security service employed by accused No. 1. As per the hire purchase agreement the complainant was liable to pay equated monthly instalment of Rs. 12,252/- and she already paid 23 instalments which made a total sum of Rs 1,81,796/-. On 27.10.2003 at 11 a. m. the accused persons with their men and agents came in disguise of customer for procuring carrier service and induced the driver of the vehicle to ply the vehicle on the road and then they threatened the driver and took possession of the vehicle after assaulting the driver. Thus the accused persons committed offence under section 392/34/356/420/120B of the IPC.
(2.) This petition was filed before the learned CJM, Barasat who referred the same to the O. C., Jagaddal P. S. for investigation by treating the same as FIR.
(3.) Thus the FIR is sought to be quashed by the petitioner, the financier on the following grounds: Though the O. P. No. 2 paid 23 instalments and a part of 24th monthly instalment she thereafter completely defaulted in payment of the remaining monthly hire charges despite reminders by the petitioner. In terms of the hire-purchase agreement dated 26.07.2001 the O. P. No. 2 was to pay monthly hire charge of Rs. 12,252/- and the ownership of the vehicle rested with the financier. It was only after completion of payment of 35 equal monthly instalments by the O. P. No. 2, to the petitioner that the said O. P. No. 2 would have had the option of purchasing the vehicle from the said petition by paying a token sum of Re. 1/-. In view of the continued failure on the part of the O. P. No. 2 to make payment of the monthly hire charges he was called upon to make payment through a letter dated 13.10.2003 but in vain. Accordingly, the vehicle was repossessed on 27.10.2003 in terms of the agreement wherein it was specifically provided that on the failure of the O. P. No. 2 to pay monthly hire charges in terms of the agreement the financier would be eligible to repossess the vehicle and the factum of repossession of the vehicle was strictly in terms thereof. A pre-sale notice dated 02.01.2004 was sent to the O. P. No. 2 by the petitioner wherein she was informed that her total dues was Rs. 1,54,194.68p inclusive of vehicle's godown charges and overdue interest and she was asked to clear the dues within a period of seven days and it was also made clear that in the event she preferred not to make any further payment of her dues the vehicle would be sold and used towards liquidation of her debts and in the event of any amount remaining unsatisfied she would be held responsible. The O. P. No. 2 did not respond to the notice dated 02.01.2004 and consequently the petitioner was compelled and constrained to dispose of the vehicle on or about 09.02.2005 by sale to one Gourav Gupta in terms of the agreement. The O. P. wrote a letter dated 10.01.2004 to the petitioner making various allegations but no payments were made and having failed to obtain possession of the vehicle the O. P. filed the instant complaint with learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, 24-Parganas (North) at Barasat on 25.02.2005 nearly after 16 months from the date of repossession of the vehicle.;