IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.18175 of 1999 MAHABIR PRASAD SHARMA, SON OF LATE MOHAN LAL SHARMA, THE REGIONAL MANAGER M/S ASHOK LEYLAND FINANCE LTD, LAW KUSH TOWER, EXHIBITION ROAD, PATNA……………………………………………… PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. PRABHAT BHUSAN, SON OF LATE SHAMBHU NATH SAHAY, ABULAS LANE, MACHHUA TOLI, P.S. KADAM KUAN, DISTRICT- PATNA…………………………….. OPPOSITE PARTIES With Cr.Misc. No.18225 of 1999 M/S ASHOK LEYLAND FINANCE LTD, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT SUDARSHAN BUILDING, 86, CHAMIERS ROAD, CHENNAI-18 THROUGH MR. MAHAVIR PRASAD SHARMA, S/O LATE MOHAN LAL SHARMA, REGIONAL MANAGER, ASHOK LEY LAND FINANCE LTD. DULY AUTHORISED TO REPRESENT M/S ASHOK LEYLAND FINANCE LTD. 2. P. RAGHUNATHAN, GENERAL MANAGER ACCOUNTS AND SECRETARY, M/S ASHOK LEYLAND FINANCE LIMITED, SUDARSHAN BUILDING, 86, CHAMIERS ROAD, CHENNAI-18 3. RATAN KUMAR SINHA, SON OF SRI T.P. SINHA, A.G.M. (EAST), M/S ASHOK LEYLAND FINANCE LTD. 41, SHAKESPEARE SARANI, CALCUTTA-17…….. PETITIONERS Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. PRABHAT BHUSAN, SON OF LATE SHAMBHU NATH SAHAY, ABULAS LANE, MACHHUA TOLI, P.S. KADAM KUAN, DISTRICT- PATNA………………………………..OPP. PARTIES. ----------- FOR THE PETITIONERS :- MR. ASHWANI KR. SINGH, SR. ADVOCATE MR. PANKAJ KR. DAS ADVOCATE MR. PANKAJ KR. SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR THE STATE :- MR. MATLOOB RAM, A.P.P. ---------- 16 27-4-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners in both the quashing applications and learned counsel for the State. In spite of notice nobody has appeared for the complainant. 2 Both the quashing applications arise out of a complaint case bearing no. 509 ( C ) / 1999 pending before a Judicial Magistrate, Ist. Class, Patna and the challenge is to the order of cognizance taken on 14-6-1999 as well as the entire criminal proceeding on the ground of being malicious and filed only with a view to pressurize the Financial Company and its officials not to pursue Misc. Case No. 1715 of 2009 filed under section 9 of the Arbitration Act before the City Civil Court, Calcutta in which an order appointing receiver to take possession of the Fiat car,the subject matter of hire purchase was passed by the Civil Court on 5-3-1999 Annexure-F ). From the averments in the complaint case it has been shown that only material allegation, with a view to make out a case under sections 406 and 420 of the I.P.C. is to the effect that in course of hire purchase agreement, signature of the complainant was obtained on a document in which the name of the arbitrator was left blank and allegedly the name was subsequently inserted in breach of trust and for the purpose of cheating the complainant. It appears that the arbitrator named in the document 3 has also been made accused no.6 and cognizance order under challenge dated 14-6-99 has been quashed by this Court in respect of that accused by order dated 10th February, 2000 passed in Cr.Misc. Case No. 18145/99. The undisputed order passed by the City Civil Court, Calcutta on 5th March,1999 supports the defence of the petitioners noted above and there appears substance in the submission that when the receiver attempted to take possession of the vehicle under hire purchase, the complaint case in question was filed on 22nd April1999. There also appears substance in the submission that it is easy to allege that a document signed by the complainant contained a blank and it has been filled up with the name of the arbitrator a co-accused with a view to commit some offence but it is very difficult to prove that the complainant signed the document with closed eyes without noticing the blank. There appears substance in the submission that merely the name of the Advocate/ Arbitrator allegedly filled up against blank cannot be sufficient indication that there was any breach of trust or cheating against the complainant. The fact that the complainant had appeared earlier 4 in this case at the stage of admission but later no vakalatnama was filed and his non-appearance even after service of notice being effected in February, 2011, shows that he has also lost interest in the complaint case which appears to have been filed only to put mala fide pressure upon accused no.1, a financer, not to take possession of the vehicle through lawfully appointed receiver. For all the aforesaid reasons the complaint case in question as well as the order of cognizance are quashed and both the quashing applications are allowed. Naresh ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)