HARPHUL SINGH BRAR,J - (1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing of First Information Report No. 104, registered at Police Station, Sangrur on August 25, 1992. The First Information Report was lodged on the statement of Jagdev Singh son of Teja Singh, resident of Patiala Gate, Sangrur, which reads as under : "I am the owner of Mahavir Transport Co. (Regd.) Sangrur. My one bus No. PAB 9719 model 1988 bearing chasis No. 344050284398, Engine No. 692D 23292307 have yellow colour with green stripes and black glasses belonging to Mahavir Transport Co. plies from Sangrur to Bareta. In the evening, I park it in the PRTC Bus Stand Sangrur, like everyday the driver of the above bus, Baljit Singh son of Sudhra Singh resident of Chatha Sekhwan P.S. Sangrur parked the said bus in the PRTC Bus Stand and left for his village. When he came to the bus stand yesterday (following morning) he saw that the bus was not there where he had left it parked last night. He came to my house and told me, I searched a lot for the bus but could not trace it. Now I have learnt that day before yesterday persons from Motor and General Finance Ltd. New Delhi have stolen away the bus from the bus stand. Action may be taken. I have heard the statement which is correct. Sd/- Jagdev Singh, attested-SI Kewal Krishan dated 25.8.92."
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts as mentioned in the petition are that respondent-Jagdev Singh proprietor of Mahavir Transport Co. (Regd.), Sangrur got a new vehicle financed from Motor and General Finance Ltd. on hire purchase basis. The said vehicle was given Registration No. PAB 9719. It was of Model 1988, bearing Chasis No. 344050284398, Engine No. 692D23292307. Respondent Jagdev Singh purchased the above-mentioned vehicle on hire purchase and took a loan of Rs. 3,62,000/- from the Finance Company. The loan was returnable by 35 monthly instalments from November 6, 1988 at the rate of Rs. 10,400/- per month. According to the agreement which is attached as Annexure P1 with the petition, the guarantor was also made liable for the recovery of the loan amount if the hirer failed to pay any instalment and the same could be recovered from the guarantor. It is then stated in the petition that since respondent Jagdev Singh did not fulfil the conditions of the agreement and did not pay the instalments as agreed, petitioner Sham Lal Sood as Attorney of the Finance Company informed the guarantor for the payment of the amount due to the Company failing which proceedings would be started both against the hirer as well as the guarantor, Paramjit Singh son of Sardara Singh.
(3.) IT is then stated in the petition that it seemed that Paramjit Singh Guarantor of the loan in question, when received notice of the Company, contacted the hirer Jagdev Singh telling him to pay the instalments or to return the vehicle to the Company. The hirer having shown his inability to pay the amount to the Finance Company, handed over his bus to the guarantor on August 23, 1992. When the guarantor was bringing the bus to be handed over to the Finance Company who was the actual owner, the police at Malerkotla intercepted the bus and detained the guarantor Paramjit Singh, who remained in police custody up to September 1, 1991. Representation made by Paramjit Singh to the D.I.G. Police, Patiala Range, Patiala has also been annexed with the petition as Annexure P2.;