CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOUS No.28221 OF 2006 In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sunil Kedia, son of Shri Radheshyam Kedia, Director M/S Ruhi Leasing Co.Ltd. 33A, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Kolkata – 400 071. ----- Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Rabindra Prasad yadav, son of Late Ramyodhya Rai, resident of village – Nakata Diyara, P.S. Digha District Patna at present yadubanshi Nagar, P.S. – Digha, District – Patna. -----Opposite Parties. **** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHILESH CHANDRA ***** Akhilesh Chandra, J. Heard Mr. Nalini Kant Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Rekha Prasad, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Mr. Atul Chandra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of order dated 07.10.2005 passed by Sri P.C. Anal, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna, in Complaint Case No. 728(C) of 2005 taking cognizance for the offence under Sections 418 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The relevant short fact of the case is that opposite party no.2 got a Tractor bearing No. BR-1Q 8842 on the basis of hire purchase agreement with finance company of which - 2 - petitioner is a Director. Undisputedly, some default was made in payment of E.M.I. as per agreement giving rise to seizure of the vehicle on the basis of order passed by competent authority in Arbitration Proceeding initiated at Calcutta, at the instance of the petitioner where Receiver was appointed to do the needful. Subsequently, by virtue of Annexure – 7 an order dated 20.02.2006 passed in Miscellaneous Case No. 678/2004, the vehicle in question was released in favour of opposite party no.2 on certain conditions till pendency of Arbitration Proceeding. It is also relevant to mention that somehow or the other after release of the vehicle in favour of opposite party no.2, the Arbitration Proceeding proceeded ex parte and award was passed which is now under challenge at the instance of complainant opposite party no.2 for the reasons best known to him and matter is still pending. Opposite party no.2 has already challenged the aforesaid award of city civil court Calcutta, bearing Miscellaneous Petition - 3 - No. 1725/2006. The learned members of the Bar are in agreement that subject to result of the Arbitration Award and the proceeding challenging the same, no objection certificate as regard to registration of the vehicle in the name of complainant opposite party no.2 may be issued by the petitioner positively within 10 days from today for himself as well as for the company so that the vehicle in question may be registered in the name of opposite party no.2 the complainant. This No objection certificate shall be furnished before the court below immediately thereafter it will be handed over to the complainant opposite party no.2. It is further agreed that in view of changed facts and circumstances there shall be no necessity to proceed with the complaint case pending before the court below on compliance of the above order. In view of the above, impugned order is quashed and this application stands allowed. Patna High Court Dated : The 18th November 2010 Rajeev/N.A.F.R. (Akhilesh Chandra, J.)