1 criap-1998.07 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1998 OF 2007 ICICI Bank Limited, registered company having its office at Landmark, Race Course Circle, Vadodara-390007, and having its Branch Office at 1st Floor, above Ujwal Enterprises, Janki Nagar, Hingoli Road, Nanded, through its autyhorized signatory and Power of Attorney Holder Shri Rakesh s/o Vijaykumar Bhandari, age 29 years, occup. service, r/o Flat No. 5, Nabhangan "B", Hingoli Road, Janki Nagar, Nanded. Applicant versus 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The Investigation Officer, Police Station Hatta, Taluka Aundha, District Hingoli. 3. Dnyandeo s/o Munjaji Dhoble, age 25 years, occup. agril./ business, r/of Asola, Taluka Aundha, District Hingoli. Respondents --- Shri Umesh N. Shete, Advocate, for the applicant. Smt. S.D. Shelke, A.P.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Shri M.P. Kale, Adv.for Respondent No.3 (absent). --- Coram: A.H.Joshi and A.M.Thipsay, JJ. Date : November 9, 2011. Judgment (Per: A.H. Joshi, J.) 01. Heard. Perused the application and annexures thereto. 2 criap-1998.07 02. The applicant challenges the FIR in Crime No.151 of 2006 registered with Jawla Bazar Police Chowki, Police Station Hatta. 03. The ground of challenge is that the commission of offence is not disclosed in the FIR. 04. The substance of the FIR is that the complainant- respondent No.3 had purchased a two-wheeler i.e. CT-100 Bajaj Motorcycle, by obtaining loan from the applicant ICICI Bank. Twenty Four advance cheques were given by the complainant for repayment of loan in equal monthly installments. On 16.9.2006 at about 2.00 p.m. the said motorcycle was seized at village Jawla Bazar, on the ground that the installments were not paid by the complainant and thereafter the applicant sold the said motorcycle. 05. According to the contents of the FIR, seizure and sale of motorcycle, amounts to breach of trust. It is also seen that the parties are already before the consumer forum. The dispute subject-matter is of civil nature. Moreover, it is not denied by the complainant that the applicant-bank has authority to seize the hypothecated vehicle. As to what were the dues and whether any amount remains surplus with the applicant, is a matter of civil dispute. 3 criap-1998.07 06. We are, therefore, convinced that on one hand the FIR does not disclose commission of offence, and on the other hand, the grievance pertains to the dispute which is of civil nature. 07. We are, therefore, satisfied that the grievance of the complainant does not have criminal complexion and hence, the FIR is liable to be quashed. 08. Application is, therefore, allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (B) of the application. (A.M. THIPSAY, J.) (A.H. JOSHI, J.) pnd/criap-1998.07