IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.24845 of 2001 DIPANKAR GHOSH Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR For the petitioner: Shri Akhileshwar Prasad Sngh Shri Partha Sarthy, Adv. For the State: Shri Dashrath Mehta, A.P.P. ----------- 5. 18.8.2010 Heard. This petition seeks quashing of the order dated 9.1.2001 passed in Complaint Case No. 87(C ) of 1999 by Shri R.R.Tripati, Judicial Magistrate Ist, Class, Ara, by which the learned Magistrate was expressing his opinion that the grounds were sufficient for summoning the petitioner as offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code was duly constituted on facts of the case. Some of the admitted facts were that the petitioner who was Manager of M/s Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd, had financed the purchase of a bus and an agreement was duly entered into by the complainant and the Company of the petitioner which was signed by the petitioner in his capacity as Manager and that the complainant was hiring the vehicle and was paying the amount in monthly instalments on due dates. The hirer-complainant failed in paying the instalments as was agreed to be paid, as appears from the averments made in the complaint petition. On account of the failure in payment of the instalments the Finance company which was letting out the particular vehicle to the complainant resumed the possession of the vehicle as it 2 was the real owner of the vehicle which had given the same on hire to the complainant for plying the same. The complainant filed a complaint alleging that the vehicle was forcibly taken away from the possession of the hirer by the accused persons and, as such, they had committed the offence under which the petitioner could be summoned to stand his trial. Two decisions of the Supreme Court were placed before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner- one is reported in (1979) 4 S.C.C. 396 Sardar Trilok Singh and Ors.Vs. Satya Deo Tripathi and the other is reported in (2001)7 S.C.C. 417 Charanjit Singh Chadha and Ors. Vs. Sudhir Mehra. On consideration of the two decisions it may be very clear that in an agreement which is of hire-purchase, the purchaser is the real owner of the property and the hirer could not be said to be in possession of the property. As such, if he fails in payment of the instalments which were required to be made by him, then, the purchaser could retrieve the vehicle from the possession of the hirer and it could not constitute any offence. Considering the above two decisions, the whole prosecution in Complaint Case No. 87(C ) of 1999 is hereby quashed. The petition is allowed. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)