CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOUS No.47903 OF 2006 (In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.) MANAGING DIRECTOR,TATA MOTORS LTD., BOMBAY HOUSE, 24, HOMI MODI STREET, MUMBAI. – 400 001. -------- PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. MD. PARVEZ ALAM, SON OF MD. QAMRUDDIN, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA SONAULI CHOWK, NEAR MAHABIR ASTHAN GULABBAGH, P.S. SADAR, DISTT. PURNEA. ----- OPPOSITE PARTIES. --------- For the petitioner : Mr. Rana Pratap Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Akhileshwar Prasad Singh, Adv. Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Vinay Krishna Tripathy, Adv. Mr. Gadadhar Prasad Singh, Adv. For the State : Mr. Gauri Shankar Gupta, A.P.P. ------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J: The petitioner seeks quashing of the entire proceeding including the order dated 4.5.2006 by which S.D.J.M. Purnea has taken cognizance under Sections 420, 406 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code in Complaint Case No. 1730(C) of 2005. On 8.12.2006, notices were issued to the opposite party No. 2 and further proceeding was stayed. Pursuant to the service of notice, the opposite party No. 2 appeared through a validly executed Vakalatnama but has chosen not to be present 2 in Court today. The case of the Complainant is that he purchased a vehicle on loan hypothecation from TATA Motors and had entered into an agreement with them on 23.10.2003. One of the terms of the agreement was that the Company was entitled to take delivery of possession of the vehicle in case of default as per the loan agreement and was even entitled to repossess of the vehicle, in case the loanee does not pay the loan amount. However, since the Company had delivered a faulty vehicle, the default could not be attributed to the Complainant. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the Complainant had defaulted in payment of loan amount which is admitted by the Complainant, the Company was entitled to take possession of the vehicle in question which it did in due course, and, therefore, it acted as per the clauses agreed upon. In addition there are numerous documents in support of the fact that the Complainant had defaulted in payments of loan installments and the Company had acted within the legal parameters. The further submission is that in the fact situation of its Complaint, no offence whatsoever is made out. In my view since there is no element of false representation or misappropriation in the Complaint, no offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code would be made out. I am also inclined to accept the proposition that once 3 the Complainant had bilaterally agreed upon a certain term he was bound by it and he could not later on turn around and allege, he was cheated by the other party. This being the core issue the rest of the allegations appear to be totally redundant. In view of such, this application is allowed and the entire proceeding including the order dated 4.5.2006 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Purnea, in Complaint Case No. 1730 of 2005, is hereby quashed. Patna High Court, Patna Dated, the 23rd July, 2010 NAFR/S.ALI ( Anjana Prakash, J.)