IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.17052 of 2006 1. MOHAN HIMMAT SINGH SINGKAR @ MOHAN HIMATSINGKA, Son of Late Ram Jeevan Himatsingka, Director, Maurya Motors Ltd. Plot No. C- 1, Industrial Area, Patliputra, P.S. – Patliputra, District – Patna. 2. UPENDRA RAO, Son of Late Arjun Rao, Manager, Sales, Maurya Motors Ltd., Plot No. C-1, Industrial Area, Patliputra, P.S. – Patliputra, District - Patna 3. SANJAY CHAUHAN, Son of Sri Krishnadeo Singh, Accoutant, Maurya Motors Ltd., Plot No. C-1, Industrial Area, Patliputra, P.S. – Patliputra, District – Patna. …. Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. PRAKASH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, Son of Late Mangal Prasad Srivastava, Jai Matadi Enterprises, Shop No. 3, Aditya Arcade, Exhibition Road, Patna – 800 001. ….. Opp. Parties. ----------- 07/ 20.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 and learned APP for the State. Petitioners want quashing of the order dated 8.8.2005 passed by Sri Bharat Tiwary, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 1922 (C) of 2003 by virtue of which cognizance has been taken under Sections 406, 420, 468/34 of the IPC. The basic allegation made in the complaint is that a hire purchase agreement was entered between the parties. The petitioners are authorized dealer of Tata Motors and O.P. No. 2 the hirer. As per the agreement between Tata Motors and O.P. No. 2 terms and conditions were agreed upon and payments made by O.P. No. 2. But it is alleged that payment of excess amount of Rs. 57,341/- made by oversight and on demand they refused to refund or adjust the same. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that it is an out and out a civil dispute and is matter of accounting. The present case instituted against the petitioners is also misdirected and - 2 - misplaced and would amount to abuse of the process of the court. Looking at the complaint against the petitioners, the hire purchase agreement brought on record, Annexure -2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners seems to be correct. It is basically a civil dispute to be settled by the parties may through arbitration and not through a Criminal Court. The petitioners have made out a case for quashing. This application is allowed and the order dated 8.8.2005 taking cognizance in Complaint Case No. 1922 (C) of 2003 is hereby quashed. DKS/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)