D.G.R.PATNAIK,J. - (1.) BOTH these application arising out of the same case are taken up together for disposal at the stage of admission. In Cr. M.P. No. 217 of 2006, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the proceedings pending against him pursuant to the order of cognizance dated 10.6.2005 vide TR No. 1021 of 2005 (Complaint case No. 739 of 2004) for offences under Sections 420/379/120B IPC, presently pending in the court of Sri M.C. Jha, judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh. In Cr.M.P. No. 908 of 2006, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 22.4.2006 passed by the Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh, in Criminal Revision No. 21 of 2006 affirming the order dated 19.11.2006 passed by Sri M.C. Jha, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh in T.R. No. 1021 of 2005 whereby petitioner's prayer for protection under Section 205 Cr. P. C. has been rejected. The primary ground advanced by the petitioner in support of his prayer is that the continuance of the criminal proceedings on the basis of the averments made in the complaint petition of the opposite party No. 2/complainant, an abuse of the process of the court since they relate to a dispute of civil nature involving breach of hire purchase agreement and no criminal offence whatsoever is made out.
(2.) FACTS of the case, in brief, is that the complainant had purchased a tractor from M/s Sonalika Tractors, Hazaribagh. Part of the price to the extent of a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/ -, was financed by M/s Dhanbad Finance Private Ltd. of which the present petitioner happens to be the proprietor. A hire purchase agreement was entered into by and between the petitioner and the opposite party No. 2/complainant in respect of the amount financed and for the repayment of the same, ten blank cheques drawn on the Syndicate Bank Hazaribagh was given by the complainant. The borrowed amount was to be re -paid by the complainant in 24 instalments. He had paid Rs. 60,100/ - and after a gap, had paid off further amount of Rs. 70,000/ - to the financer by a bank draft dated 5.2.2003. The complainant has alleged that despite refund of the entire loan amount, the tractor along with its trailor was taken away by certain persons with the connivance of the petitioner and other co -accused persons, despite the fact that the trailor was free from all encumbrances. It is alleged that after having taken away the trailor, it was sold away to accused No. 3 and likewise, engine of the tractor was also illegally sold away. Further allegation has been made that the co -accused had obtained signatures of the complainant on blank pieces of papers under threats of grievous injury. In course of inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. statement of the complainant and his witnesses were recorded on solemn affirmation and on considering the same, the learned court below, by the impugned order dated 10.6.2005, recorded its observation that a prima facie case for offences under Section 420/379/120B of the IPC is made out against the accused persons and had issued summons directing them to appear and face trial.
(3.) THE complainant/opposite party No. 2 has appeared through Advocate and filed counter affidavit wherein he has made certain acknowledgements, namely, that after seizure of the tractor by the accused persons, on 5.9.2002 he paid the dues of rupees seventy thousand to the petitioner towards arrears of the balance of the dues and later, by two separate bank drafts dated 4.2.2003 and 5.2.2003, he paid off further balance amount of Rs. 45,000/ - and 25,000/ - respectively. The complainant has admitted that the finance for purchase of the tractor was provided by the present petitioner through his finance Company, namely M/s Dhanbad Finance Pvt. Limited and that he, the complainant, had borrowed Rs. 1.40 lakhs from the present petitioner which was repayable by him in 24 instalments. The complainant has also acknowledged that subsequently, he sold away the tractor to accused No. 3, Rajendra Sao, for settled consideration and pursuant to the agreement between them, a compromise petition under their joint signatures was filed before the court below at the time when prayer for bail of the said accused No. 3 was being considered by the learned court below.;