G.L. Gupta, J. - (1.) Through this criminal miscellaneous petition the petitioners seek quashment of the HR No. 101/96 P.S. Jaisalmer under sections 420, 406, 419, 120-B, 465 & 467 IPC.
(2.) Mr. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioners, pointing out that the complainant-respondent had purchased a truck under the Hire Purchaser Agreement, and he failed to make payment of the instalments, contended that the finance petitioners had a right to repossess the vehicle. The submission of Mr. Garg was that the dispute is of civil nature and the FIR should be quashed. He relied on the cases of Trilok Singh v. Satya Deo, 1979 SC 850 , Manipal Finance Corpn. Ltd. v. T. Bangarappa & Anr., 1994 Supp. (1) SCC 507 & K.A. Mathai @ Babu v. Kora Bibbikutty & Anr., (1996) 7 SCC 212 .
(3.) Mr. Khatri, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, on the order hand, urged that the FIR discloses the commission of cognizable offence by the petitioners, and therefore, it should not he quashed. His contention was that the petitioners cheated the complainant when they, against the agreement of supplying old model, supplied new model chassis, which was built by using spurious parts. He further contended that the petitioners took away the vehicle from the respondent-complainant on the pretext that the same would be replaced but instead of replacing or returning the vehicle to the complainant the petitioners have transferred it to someone else. According to Mr. Khatri, the facts constitute offences Ws. 420 & 406 IPC.;