Vijay Bishnoi, J. - (1.) THIS criminal misc. petition under section 482 CrPC has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for quashing the FIR No. 409/2014 dated 05.10.2014 lodged at Police Station, Sanchore, District Jalore for the offences punishable under sections 420, 406, 412, 419, 424, 440, 384, 427 and 120 -B IPC.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is the Manager of Indusind Bank Ltd. of Basni Branch, Jodhpur and has not committed any offence, however, the complainant has falsely named the petitioner as accused in the impugned FIR. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that a Truck -Trailer bearing registration No. RJ -19 -GD -3686 was sold under the hire -purchase agreement by the Indusind Bank Ltd. to the complainant and when the complainant has failed to pay the monthly instalments, the said truck was seized by the Bank authorities. It is submitted that under a hire -purchase agreement, if a financier seizes a property, then such action of seizing does not amount to criminal offence, and the criminal proceedings initiated at the instance of the loanee are liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance on decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sardar Trilok Singh & Ors. vs. Satya Deo Tripathi, : 1979 SCC (Cri.) 987, K.A. Mathai @ Babu & Anr. vs. Kora Bibbikutty & Anr.,, 1997 Cr. L.R. (SC) 621, Charanjit Singh Chadha & Ors. vs. Sudhir Mehra, : (2001) 7 SCC 417, Anup Sarmah vs. Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors. [Special Leave Petition (Cri.) No. 8907/2009] decided on 30.10.2012, and of this Court in Dinesh & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan, : 1999 Cr. L.R. [Raj.] 246 and Indusind Bank Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., S.B. Cr. Misc. Pet. No. 294/2012 decided on 21.08.2013, has prayed that the impugned FIR lodged against the petitioner may kindly be quashed.
(3.) PER contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as the complainant -respondent No. 2, present in person, have argued that the petitioner, along with other accused -persons has hatched a criminal conspiracy and extorted money from the complainant by illegally seizing the truck in question from the complainant, though he has deposited all the instalments. It is also contended that when the truck was in possession of the Bank, certain valuable property of the truck such as tyres, tarpaulin, diesel and documents i.e. original registration certificate, insurance papers, fitness and permit have been misappropriated by the accused -persons. It is also contended that from bare reading of the impugned FIR, prima facie case is made out against the petitioner along with other accused -persons, hence, no interference is required to be called for by this Court while exercising powers under section 482 CrPC.;