PANKAJ AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Y. R. Tripathi, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the AGA, who has accepted notice on behalf of the State.

(2.) NOTICE need not be sent to the opposite party No. 2 and is hereby dispensed with.

(3.) IT appears that opposite party No. 2 obtained a loan for purchase of a vehicle from supreme financers and investment and entered into a hire-purchase agreement, which contained stipulation to the effect that in the event of failure of payment of installments by opposite party No. 2, the financer company shall have right to resume possession of the vehicle. IT further appears that the financer company resumed the possession of the vehicle on the ground of failure of opposite party No. 2 to pay the installments. The possession, it appears, subsequently was given to the opposite party No. 2 under some order by District Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri. IT was thereafter that opposite party No. 2 made an application under sub-section (3) of Section 156 of the Code, alleging that the petitioners after the making over of the possession of the vehicle threatened and insulted him. On the said application of the opposite party No. 2, the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order directing the registration of a case and its investigation by the police.