IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.49558 of 2007 ANAND ROY, son of Ram Narain Roy, Proprietor Mithila Autos Pvt. Ltd., N.H. 31, P.S. K. Hat, District Purnia, resident of Dollar House, Sipahitola, P.S. K.Hat, District Purnia Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Abhay Kumar Singh, son of Sri Bechan Singh, resident of Mohalla New Colony Barmasia, Quarter No. 353/A, P.S. and District Katihar ----------- 6. 29.3.2010 Heard Mr. Madhav Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the complainant- O.P.No.2. All said and done, it is an admitted position that there was a hire purchase agreement subsisting between O.P.No.2 and the petitioner as also the financer company. In that view of the matter, the complaint petition alleging certain breach of terms and conditions of the hire purchase agreement cannot be made subject matter of a criminal prosecution as was held way back by the Apex Court in the case of Sardar Trilok Singh v. Satya Deo Tripathi, reported in AIR 1979 S.C. 850, which stands reiterated in the subsequent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Charanjit Singh Chadha & ors. vs. Sudhir Mehra, reported in AIR 2001 S.C. 2 3721 and consistently followed by this Court in the case of Ishwar Chandra & ors. vs. the State of Bihar & ors., reported in 1998(3) PLJR 322 and in the case of Mohan Singh & ors. vs. the State of Bihar., reported in 2004(2) PLJR 444. That being so, this Court must hold that the continuance of criminal prosecution would be a gross abuse of the process of the Court. Consequently, the impugned order taking cognizance is hereby set aside and the prosecution as against the petitioner is hereby quashed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/