^ c^^ k" ^ IN THE fflGH COVKT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPIJR:C.G. W.P.no. ^fl® /2003 PETITIQNERS : 2. VERSUS. RESPQNDENTS : 1.- ^%^ ^y ^ JaspalSingh, aged 45 yfs., s/o late Shri Pritam Singh Cha-wla, at Pritam Automolales, opp. Oswal Petrol pnmp, TeUbaadha, Raipur, C.G. Amarjit SHtgh, aged 32 yrs., s/o late SIm Pritam Singh Chawla, at Pritam Automobiles, opp. Oswal Petrol pump, TeUbandha, Raipur, C.G. State ofCl]liattisgarh,1hrbugh Seca'etary to the Ministry ofHoffie Affairs, D.K.Siagh Bhawan SeGretariat, Raipur,C.G. 2. The Superintendeut ofPolice ,Raipur,C.G. 3. M/s Cholaffliaiiaxlalam Investsieat and * FmanceComp9ByLtd.,atitsbrmchofBce PithaliaC^Bd^lex, iu(fliap^a;Rfflpur,C.G. Writ Petition Under Artides 226and 227 e Constitution: XI-HC-22 'a!I^I^t, ;Ri-li'h3llS?t iih<-iicf)1^i?8T jl-li'i: ^ -t- '3S[i.-*t|<iJ!«i<iy.lSKil^l«,;l«K"]liH3< '•11*ICTI ShlKB^^.i2^•w^ ZOQ'l ^FS^Sf 25072003 Sri Bhishma Kinger, couns This is the writ petitioi Constitution of India, seeking n from prosecuting the petitions punishqble under Section 138 of The case of the petition truck bearing registration No.Q by raising toan of Rs.5,50,000/- by monthly instQilments as per 10tb May; 2001. After tal^ Rs.3,50,000/- against the loan ^nstaiIments due to diIment of time to pay the outstanding 19.07.2002 seized the vehicle i^ of law. On 31st Juiy, 2002 representations were sent by accspt the outstanding instalim| 2002, petitioner No.2 aiso of^ either theoutstandirig jnstail matfer by accepting a lump respondsnt No.3 did not accecj' tt)l<tI<n<tt1T yiwff^ ^«i<<l <f^tsi< ^ 3i^3T an^fir for the petitioners. under Articles 226 and 227 of the jije'f that resporident No.3 be restrained '^ for the commission of the offence |tfte Negotiable Instruments AcT. irs is that petitioner No.l pur-chssed a ^-04/6818 under a hire purchase scheme from respondent No.3 to be repqyable |the agreemen* No.RAHP-041513 dated |ng the ioan, petitioner No.l repaid bmount, but he could not make further lis wife. The petitioners requested for instailments, but respbndent No.3 on ithout recourse to any competent Courr and on 4 September, 2002, written Ipetitioner No.l to respondent No.3 to snts, but to no avgil. On 4 September, sred to the said respondent tp accept of Rs.2^)0^)00/- or finally settie the sum payment of;Rs.4^5;000/-. But to either of the terffiS. Respondent mrtits [1fte?^f<st^ aifii XI-HC-22 '3^i«'ll*ll<!'<<),®nlwi®,laawy sni^r 'q^g? *ti*<!ni a)*iiti"" ~ "" T"^T;t 2(W^. fe^T' 3II^[^!T r<-ii* aijsr st)*i ^rS^i <-- w amtST TOIIW^riw as \ete No.3 has dteo charged Rs.500/- cheque cyid for, seizure of the vehic| demanding Ine payment of the b(^ yehieie. On 15th AAarch; 2003, respo] petitioners making jllega! demandj 06.06.2003, resporident No.3 sentj alleging the dishonour of thechequ^ I have hedrd the Igarned cour Jhe learned counsel for tiiej cheques which were g iven to' respor iocm are being misu^d. Responden- or petitioner No.S withoutgiving aj solc? the saic! truck. Therefore, th^ No.3 on account of •t+ie dishonour I fail to under stand how thil between the petitioners and respo(|i is a dispute based on cm agreemenl) As per the petitioner, now respon.d4 the amount through cheques and h| 138 of 1+ie Negotiable Instr between the privste parties. If Th( have his remedy by approaching th| oflthe potjids trumertts <T»lqi?l^ll **1*1CTF T^ fs^ lRq<$l^ ^? SB^PT 3fl^T penalty for the dishonour of -Hie [e. On 22.07.2002, a notice wassent jlance amount so aS to retease the i^ident No.3 again sent a notics to the of payment of Rs.70,468/-. On d demand notice to the petitioners on29.04.2Q03. |sei for the petitioners. pstitioners submits that the blank (dent No.3 at 1+ie time of taking the No.3 took into possession the truck |i opportunity to the petitioners and proceeding instituted by respondent cheques may be quashed. writ petition lies. This is a dispute snt No-3/Company qnd moreover it in which petitioner No.l tooka loan. |it No.3 istaking recourse to recover is filed the complaint under Section Act. f This is a simpte dispute petitioner has any grievonce he can civil or criminal Couri. Alternative {^^ ~V^SV~C7~ XI-HC-22 . '3^<NRi?I:a, wB'y'Ko, Ri<iws< S^sn^r 1?3?R _,&^.^^^ ^,^ *(rt<'fid)*ii*"'""""'""""""""""7'"wi, "•ft^g""""' :sn^w K-ii<*> snjST aiira V^S ,£-. Soma «n^r'^RlPStflftS s+ ige remady is avai'able tp-the petitionet^ in this matter and the State is hol TTierefore, .no writ petition dismissed as not maintainabie. In view of this ordsr", No.6446/2003 stand disposed of. i^Nici?fr^ NWcifJ^^^ ^*^< ^ ^<pa^ <fl^( Moreover, the State is notaparty even remotely concerned with this ies in the raatter and the sa.me is M.(W.)P.No.l910/2003 smd I.A. SdA L-C. Bbadoo Judge Nti^a^