IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.358 of 2002 1. M/S TATA FINANCE LTD 2. RANGNATH SRIVASTAV -------------- PETITIONERS Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. NAND KISHORE SINGH -------------- OPPOSITE PARTIES with CR. REV. No.361 of 2002 1. PHOOLTAS AUTOS LTD.,COMPANY INCORPORATED 2. MOHAN HIMMATSINGKA 3. SHAMBHU SHARAN SHARMA 4. RAMESHWAR PRASAD 5. SHAILESH KUMAR ----------------- PETITIONERS Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. NAND KISHORE SINGH --------------- OPPOSITE PARTIES with CR. REV. No.374 of 2002 1. M/S NAVIN MOTORS, A COMPANY INCORPORATED 2. ARVIND KUMAR PANDEY ------------- PETITIONERS Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. NAND KISHORE SINGH ------------------ OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- Against the part of order dated 13.2.2002 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 2351© of 2001. ***** For the petitioners : M/s Akhileshwar Pd. Singh And Vinay Krishna Tripathy For Opposite party No.2 : Mr. Abinash Kumar -------------- P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE MANDHATA SINGH M.Singh,J., These revision applications are directed against the part of order dated 13.2.2002 passed 2 by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 2351© of 2001 whereby he has proceeded to take cognizance against these petitioners. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. While complainant’s truck was on way to load stone chips that was intercepted on behalf of petitioners, re-possessed as the same was sold to the complainant, on hire purchase agreement and instalment of loan was found due. Instalment loan is said of Rs. 16,650.00 allegedly that was being paid regularly and a meagre amount was due only. Further it is said that chassis and engine only was purchased, its body was constructed by the complainant himself and he was sole owner of the vehicle. Re- possession of the truck is allegedly followed by taking away of Rs. 10,000/-. 4. In the complaint filed on behalf of complainant, the complainant and his two witnesses are examined, thereafter cognizance is taken for offence under sections 392, 406, 468 and 120B IPC by-passing the impugned order legality, correctness and proprietary of which has been questioned through filing these 3 revision applications. 5. Single and sole submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that in the transaction of present case, Truck in question was purchased by the complainant on the basis of hire purchase agreement, meant to say that cash was financed by petitioners by executing agreement and authorizing petitioners to re-possess Truck in question in case installments are not paid, that is admitted in complaint petition also. What amount was really due and from which date is not mentioned in the complaint petition. Further it is not mentioned if any request was made earlier either oral or written for any time to pay dues in instalment. This is relevant only on the point that complainant did not come with clean hands. Petitioners’ power to re-possess is mentioned in clause-18 of the agreement. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on following judgments in support of his contention: 1. Sardar Trilok Singh & Ors Vs. Satya Deo Tripathi, reported in A.I.R.1979 Supreme Court 850. 2. Mohan Singh & others Vs. The State of 4 Bihar, reported in 2004(2) PLJR 444. 3. Charanjit Singh Chadha & Ors. Vs. Sudhir Mehra, reported in (2001)7 SCC 417. 7. Once petitioners are authorized through agreement to re-possess, no criminal liability can be fixed for any of the offence which has not been considered by the Trial Court. 8. In the result, this revision application is allowed and order dated 13.2.2002 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 2351© of 2001 is set aside. The complaint petition is dismissed under section 203 Cr.P.C. finding no offence under sections 394, 406, 168 and 120B IPC. ( Mandhata Singh, J.) PATNA HIGH COURT DATED: 07-04-2010 AI/A.F.R.