ISHWAR CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioners and also learned Counsel for the complainant-opposite party No. 2.

(2.) BY this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal prosecution launched against them under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code including the order taking cognizance dated 12.7.1993 in Complaint Case No. 732(C) 92171/93.

(3.) IT appears that the learned Counsel on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 is not denying existence of the agreement which appears to be the basis for hire purchase of the vehicle in question. Since there is already an agreement in between the parties, in my opinion, the complainant has civil remedy and the petitioners, in that view of the matter, cannot be held liable for criminal charges. In the case of Trilok Singh and other v. Satya Deo Tripathi (supra) the Apex Court had held that a proceeding initiated for criminal consequence was clearly an abuse of process of the court as there was already a hire-purchase agreement in between the parties. Similar is the situation in the case at hand and the ratio laid down by the Apex Court appropriately applies in the facts and circumstances of this case. Again, the same view has been reiterated by this Court in the case of Sharad Agrawal and others v. The State of Bihar and others (supra) that when there is an agreement, lunching of criminal prosecution shall be an abuse of process of the Court.