MEENA Vs. SANJAY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for quashing of Complaint No.3 of 2021, titled as Sanjay Kumar vs. Meena and others and all subsequent proceedings pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No.3, Mandi, H.P.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for adjudication of petition are that the petitioner had purchased a vehicle (Innova Crysta) for plying the same as taxi and had obtained financial assistance from AU Small Finance Bank. Petitioner entered into an agreement to sell dtd. 11/8/2020 with respondent, whereby the aforesaid vehicle was agreed to be transferred to respondent against total consideration of Rs.21,44,000.00. Out of the aforesaid consideration amount, a sum of Rs.2,30,000.00was paid to the petitioner and remaining amount of Rs.19,14,000.00 was to be paid to the financer AU Small Finance Bank in equal monthly installments of Rs.33,000.00. Possession of the vehicle was handed over to the respondent. Allegedly, respondent defaulted in payment of installments to the AU Small Finance Bank. Petitioner re-possessed the vehicle. Before possessing the vehicle, petitioner had issued a legal notice to respondent on 5/3/2021. The notice was replied on behalf of the respondent vide reply dtd. 23/3/2021 and it was mentioned that as per agreement, the vehicle could be re-possessed only on default of three consecutive installments.

(3.) Respondent filed an application before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi under Sec. 156 (3) of Cr.P.C., seeking direction to the SHO, Police Station, Sadar to lodge FIR against the petitioner. The grievance of the respondent was that despite his depositing the overdue amount of Rs.63,404.00with interest, the petitioner on 18/3/2021 had taken forcible possession of the vehicle at Shimla. Respondent had filed complaint to the police at Shimla but no action was taken. Respondent further alleged that later the vehicle was found at Manali and the respondent had made a request for handing over the vehicle to him and on his request, the vehicle was in fact handed over to him. However, on complaint of the petitioner, the vehicle was taken in possession by police and was wrongly released in favour of the petitioner.