Jharkhand High CourtDhrubashish Bhattacharya ? D. ... vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 13 June, 2013Author:R. R. PrasadBench:R. R. PrasadIN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                           Cr. M. P. No. 761 of 2011

           1.Dhrubashish Bhattacharya @ D. Bhattacharya
           2. Raj Kishore Sharma
           3. Abhishek Singh @ Abhisekh Kumar        .....       Petitioner(s)

                                       Versus
           1.The State of Jharkhand
           2. Jyotish Prasad Keshari                      ....     Opp. Party(s)

           CORAM:          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. R. PRASAD

           For the Petitioner(s) :    M/s Indrajit Sinha, Raunak Kumar,
                                  Kumar Vimal, Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocates.
           For the State          :   A.P.P.
           For the O.P. No.2      :   Mr. Satish Kumar Keshari, Advocate.
                                -----

03 /13.06.2013.     Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and
           learned counsel appearing for the opposite party as well as learned
           counsel appearing for the State.This application is directed against the order dated
           28.01.2011 passed in Complaint Case No.25 of 2008, whereby and
           whereunder cognizance of the offence punishable underSection
           392/34of the Indian Penal Code has been taken as against the
           petitioners pursuant to the order dated 13.05.2009 passed by the
           learned District & Sessions Judge, Lohardaga in Criminal Revision
           No.4 of 2009.It is the case of the complainant that he had taken loan of
           Rs.7,17,000/- from the petitioner's company for purchasing a truck
           which he had purchased. In course of time, while the driver was
           returning to Ranchi after unloading the materials, the petitioners No.2
           and 3 intercepted the truck bearing Registration No.JH-08 5765 and
           forcibly took it away. On the next day, the complainant came to the
           Finance Company and met with the petitioner No.1 and requested
           him to release the truck, but he refused to release the said truck.On such allegation, the complaint case was lodged which
           was registered as Complaint Case No.25 of 008 [T.R. No.599 of
           2011]. On such complaint, the Magistrate took cognizance of the
           offence underSection 323of the Indian Penal Code as against the
           two persons.Being aggrieved with that order, the complainant moved to
           the revisional court and the revisional court set aside the order and
           passed an order for taking cognizance of the offence afresh. Pursuant
           to that the court took cognizance of the offence underSection 392of
           the Indian Penal Code which order is under challenge.Mr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
           submits that admittedly the case is of hire-purchase agreement. In
           that event, if the truck on account of non-payment of the premium is
           repossessed, no offence is made out either of theft or robbery.Further, it was submitted that the matter has been
           compromised and a joint compromise petition by way of interlocutory
           application bearing its No.1571 of 2012 has been filed and on this
           ground also the order taking cognizance is fit to be quashed.Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2 also
           admitted that the matter has been compromised.Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and
           on perusal of the record it does appear from the complaint petition
           that the complainant had taken loan for purchasing the truck.
           Obviously there appears to be a case of hire-purchase contract.
           According to the petitioners, the truck had been repossessed by the
           Financier on account of default being made by the complainant and in
           such situation, if the truck is repossessed, no offence is made out
           underSection 392of the Indian Penal Code, in view of the decision
           rendered in a case ofCharanjit Singh Chadha and Ors Vs. Sudhir
           Mehrareported in 2001[7] SCC 417. Moreover, the parties got the
           matter compromised,.In that event, the entire criminal proceeding of
           Complaint Case No.25 of 2008 including the order taking cognizance
           dated 28.01.2011 is hereby, set aside, so far the above-named
           petitioners are concerned.In the result, this application stands allowed.Accordingly, I.A. No.1571 of 2012 stands allowed and
           disposed of,.(R. R. Prasad, J.)
Sandeep/