BIJOY KUMAR SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE application had been initially filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India but subsequently by order dated 5.4.2001 the same has been converted to one under Section 482, Cr.P.C.

(2.) THE petitioner in this petition prays for quashing I.C.C. No. 15 of 2001 pending in the Court of the learned J.M.F.C. (Rural), Cuttack. From the order -sheet it appears that notice on opposite party No.2 could not be served as a result of which the same was published in the news paper and on such publication notice on opposite party No.2 was accepted as sufficient. In spite of such notice also the opposite party No.2 has not appeared before this Court. Since notice was issued on the question of admission and final disposal, this matter was taken up for hearing on consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

(3.) ON a bare reading of the complaint petition itself though it appears that an allegation has been made that JSS Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. was running a business of sanctioning loan, it appears that the Citi Corp Maruti Finance is an organisation which was financing for purchase of vehicles. No document whatsoever has been produced before the learned Magistrate to show that JSS Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. was the financing organisation. So far as the incident dated 18.2.2001 is concerned, though the complaint was lodged in a general manner that all the accused persons came along with 3 to 4 antisocials and took away the vehicle there is absolutely no allegation of any kind of overt act so far as the present petitioner is concerned. the question raised by the learned Addl. Standing Counsel that the financing institution has no right to take away the vehicle forcibly has also been answered in the case of Silfred Benedict alias Rajesh Bendict and another v. Surya Kumar Sethi reported in (2001) 20 OCR 713 Relying on an earlier decision of the Apex Court, this Court in the aforesaid case held that when possession of the vehicle has been taken in terms of the agreement between the financier and the complainant, no criminal liability can be attributed and the dispute is of a civil nature. Therefore, taking away the vehicle from the possession of the complainant in the present case is a civil dispute as is evident from the hire purchase agreement filed before this Court. So far as the application of force or taking away the gold ring and gold chain are concerned, there is absolutely no allegation of any kind of overt act so far as the present petitioner is concerned. There is also no material on record to attract Section 34 of the Penal Code.