RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State.
(2.) IN this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 26.09.2002 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Jamshedpur in C -1 Case No. 105 of 2002 by which cognizance has been taken under Section 406/468 of the I.P.C.
(3.) THE prosecution story in brief is that, the complainant had approached Shrachi Securities Limited for financing a vehicle for which he was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,65,042/ - and Shrachi Securities Limited was to finance the balance amount of Rs. 5,60,000/ - for purchase of a Dumper. The amount was to be repaid in 35 instalments, the first instalment being Rs. 23,400/ - and the remaining 34 instalments were of Rs. 22,100/ - each. It has been alleged in the complaint petition that when the Dumper was handed over to him, certain manufacturing and mechanical defects were found as a result of which, the complainant could not ply the vehicle and he has requested for replacement of the vehicle and also taken the Dumper to the workshop of the accused. He has also alleged that the Dumper was not having an insurance policy and on account of non -availability of the insurance policy, he had to pay a fine and get the vehicle released. It has further been alleged by the complainant that another case being C/1 -440 of 2001 was instituted by him, since the petitioner no. 1 of the present case has obtained an Award from the Arbitrator behind his back. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that from the perusal of the complaint petition, there does not appear to have any criminal element present in it so as to proceed against the petitioners. He has further submitted that with respect to the same vehicle pursuant to the order passed by the City Civil Court, Kolkata on 11.09.2001, the Receiver who was earlier appointed has repossessed the vehicle in question. In fact, in terms of the agreement, an Arbitrator was also appointed and on 19.03.2001 an Award was given by the Arbitrator in which he had given a finding that the petitioner no. 1 is the owner of the vehicle which is being claimed by the complainant. He has further submitted that Cr.M.P. No. 4866 of 2001 which had been preferred by the petitioners against the complaint case instituted by the complainant being C/1 -440 of 2001 has already been quashed by this Hon'ble Court.;