Patna High Court
Kapil TyagiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The order taking cognizance is bad in law and is set aside, and the criminal proceedings against the petitioners and Mahindra Finance are quashed.
Summary
The petitioners, senior officials of L&T Finance Ltd., sought quashing of a cognizance order dated 18‑07‑2023 that alleged their involvement in offences under Sections 406, 420, 468, 471, 120(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code relating to the seizure of a Sonalika tractor. The complainant claimed the tractor was seized by agents of Mahindra Finance on the ground of loan default, and the magistrate had found a prima facie case against the petitioners and other accused. The petitioners argued they had no role in the seizure, could not be held vicariously liable for actions of other employees, and that the loan account had been closed and the tractor returned, rendering the proceedings futile. The court observed that L&T Finance did not effect the seizure, the tractor had been returned, and the loan was waived, concluding that there was no illegality by the petitioners. Consequently, the court set aside the cognizance order and quashed the criminal proceedings against both L&T Finance officials and Mahindra Finance and its officers.
Issues considered
- Whether the magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the offences in the absence of prima facie evidence against the petitioners.
- Whether senior officers of L&T Finance can be held vicariously liable for the alleged seizure of the tractor.
- Whether continuation of criminal proceedings against Mahindra Finance constitutes an abuse of process given the tractor was returned and the complainant’s grievance was redressed.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120(B), 34, 406, 420, 468, 471
Subjects
- criminal procedure
- quash of criminal proceedings
- vicarious liability
- abuse of process
- Indian Penal Code
- loan default
- seizure of property
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76359 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-5993 Year-2022 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna
======================================================
1. Kapil Tyagi C/O. Tej Pal Tyagi Resident of 538 K/1264-2, Chanakyapuri,
P.S. - Maidiyanva, Sitapur Road, Triveni Nagar 3, Lucknow, Lucknow Uttar
Pradesh - 226021, Office address- L and T Finance Ltd Patna Office no 201
and 202, 2nd floor, Grand Aley Manawar, Gandhi Maidan Road, P.S.-
Gandhi Maidan, Near Panache Hotel, Patna - 800001, L and T Finance,Twin
Tower, 1st Floor South Gandhi Maidan, Patna - 800001
2. Anand Pratul @ Pratul Anand, Branch Head Son of Satya Narayan Tiwary
P.S.- Gandhi Maidan, Office address- L and T Finance Ltd, Office No. 201
and 202, 2nd floor, Grand Aley Manawar, Gandhi Maidan Road, Near
Panache, Patna. Permanent Resident of Chaudhary Tola, Near Flour Mill,
New Colony, Mahendru, P.S.- Sultanganuj, Patna, Bihar - 800006
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Rajiv Kumar Son of Late Baban Rai Resident of Mohalla- Nakta Diyara,
Digha Ghat, P S - Digha, Town and District- Patna
3. Sachin Jha, Proprietor cum owner, Sachin Jha, Nexgen Agrico Khagaul
road, Danapur, Patna-801503, Bihar
4. Mahindra Finance through State Head 1st Floor, Plot no. 6, Besides Cimage
Institiute, Sri Krishna PUri, Near Children's Park, Patna-800001
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Apurv Harsh, Advocate
Mr. Manu Tripurari, Advocate
Mr. Raghu Raj Pratap, Advocate
Mr. Hritik Anand, Advocate
Mr. Astitva, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Nagendra Prasad, APP
For the O.P. No. 2 : Ms. Jaya Singh, Advocate
Mr. Pranshu Prakash, Advocate
Mr. Chandramauli, Advocate
For the O.P. No. 4 : Mr. Shivendra Kumar Ray, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 29-01-2026
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
counsel for the O.Ps. No. 2 and 4 as also the learned APP for the
State.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76359 of 2024 dt.29-01-2026
2/8
2. This application has been preferred for quashing of
the cognizance order dated 18.07.2023 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 5993
of 2022 for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 468, 471, 120(B)
and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The facts leading to the present application is to the
effect that the complainant had booked a Sonalika Tractor through
an authorized dealer namely Nexgen Agrico and had made a down
payment of Rs. 1 lakh, while a loan was financed by L&T Finance
Ltd. It has been alleged that the complainant had been paying the
installments since January, 2019 regularly however, on
05.02.2022, some agents of Mahindra Finance, accused nos. 2 to 6
snatched and seized the aforesaid tractor of the complainant stating
that the loanee of the tractor was a defaulter of repayment of loan
amount to accused nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 9 and 10. It has been alleged that
the complainant served a legal notice upon all the accused persons
but no response was given by the accused persons and, therefore,
the complaint was filed.
4. The learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna after
going through the solemn affirmation of the complaint, the
submissions on behalf of the complainant as well as the documents
filed in support of the complaint including the details of bank
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76359 of 2024 dt.29-01-2026
3/8
transaction and legal notice came to the conclusion that a prima
facie case is made out against all the accused persons namely 1.
Sachin Jha, 2. Sant Kumar Singh, 3. Nawnit Sinha, 4. Yogesh
Kumar, 5. Kapil Tyagi and 6. Anand Pratul.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners
submits that the petitioners were the Business Head and Branch
Head respectively at the time of occurrence. It has been submitted
that the petitioners had nothing to do with the aforesaid seizure
and they have falsely been implicated with a fabricated
prosecution story only with an evil design to coerce the petitioners
into conceding to the demands of the complainant. It has been
submitted that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance
without application of judicious mind as no prima facie evidence
was there to suggest the involvement of the petitioners in any
criminal conspiracy.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits
that no specific role has been attributed to them in order to show
their complicity in any manner and as far as the seizure of the
vehicle from the complainant is concerned, there is no role assign
to the petitioners. It has been stated that the petitioners being
senior personnel of L&T Finance cannot be held vicariously liable
for the actions of their other employees or agents.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76359 of 2024 dt.29-01-2026
4/8
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners has lastly
submitted that even if the allegations are taken on its face value,
during the pendency of the present application, the L&T Finance
Ltd., which had granted loan to the O.P. No. 2 has closed the
account by waiving off the remaining principle amount of Rs.
40331/-. It has further been submitted that in compliance with the
directions of this Court vide order dated 02.09.2025, the officer of
L&T Finance Ltd. has handed over the possession of the tractor to
the O.P. No. 2 vide Letter dated 03.09.2025.
8. It has thus been submitted that in view of the fact that
the tractor is returned to the complainant/O.P. No. 2, the
continuation of the present proceedings against the petitioners
would amount to a trial in futility as the grievances of the
complainant has been redressed and, therefore, the order taking
cognizance may be set aside.
9. Learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 has submitted that
the tractor has been received by the O.P. No. 2 and there is no
objection to the disposal of the present case even if the same is
allowed. The learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 has further
submitted that the grievance of the complainant has been redressed
and he does not want to pursue the matter any further.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76359 of 2024 dt.29-01-2026
5/8
10. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the newly added O.P. No. 4 i.e. Mahindra Finance
submits that Mahindra Finance has been falsely implicated in this
case as they were acting bonafidely on account of the fact that the
same tractor was financed by them to one Vikash Saw through the
dealer Mithu Bajrano Agio Agency. It has been submitted that the
officers of the Mahindra Finance had nothing to do with the
present case and they had been made an accused merely because
the complainant was under the impression that his installments
was being paid and as to how the people from Mahindra Finance
could take away his tractor when the loan had been forwarded by
L&T Finance.
11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of O.P. No. 4
thus submits that the continuation of the proceedings even against
the O.P. No. 4, Mahindra Finance and its officers would amount to
abuse of the process of law as not only the tractor has been
returned to the complainant the money forwarded as loan to the
customer by Mahindra Finance is yet to be recovered and they
would unnecessarily be proceeded against in the present matter. It
has been submitted that if the application as against the officials of
L&T Finance is being entertained then the criminal proceedings as
also against the Mahindra Finance and its officers be also quashed.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76359 of 2024 dt.29-01-2026
6/8
12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
having perused the entire materials on record, one thing is evident
that the L&T Finance Ltd. had given a loan to the complainant and
who was paying the installments regularly till the date the tractor
was lifted by the people of Mahindra Finance. It is thus clear that
as far as the seizure of the tractor for non-payment of installments
is concerned, the same was not done by the L&T Finance and its
officers rather the said step was taken by Mahindra Finance (O.P.
No. 4).
13. In the above view of the matter, continuation of the
proceedings especially taking into account the fact that L&T
Finance had no role in the seizure of the tractor and also the fact
that they have handed over the possession of the tractor to the O.P.
No. 2 after the said tractor was released in their favour by
Mahindra Finance on 02.09.2025. It has also been taken note of
that the L&T Finance has waived off the remaining principle
amount of Rs. 40331/- and has also closed the loan account of the
complainant/O.P. No. 2.
14. Therefore, I do not see any illegality being
committed by the L&T Finance and its officers and therefore, the
order taking cognizance dated 18.07.2023 is bad in law and is fit to
be set aside.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76359 of 2024 dt.29-01-2026
7/8
15. Thus, the application preferred by the petitioners is
allowed and the entire criminal proceedings initiated on the basis
of Complaint Case No. 5993 of 2022 dated 18.07.2023 against the
petitioners is, hereby, quashed.
16. One question which remains to be answered is the
fact which has been raised by the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of O.P. No. 4 i.e. Mahindra Finance. I have noted that
Mahindra Finance in a bonafide impression that the said Sonalika
Tractor, which was purchased by the complainant/O.P. No. 2,
having the same chassis number and engine number was also sold
by the dealer Mithu Bajrano Agio Agency to one Vikash Saw.
Learned counsel has stated that the Mahindra Finance was acting
on account of non-payment of the installment amounts which they
were not receiving from the person namely Vikash Saw who had
been forwarded the finance under an agreement dated 25.06.2018.
17. In view of such submissions, this Court also finds
that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the accused
Mahindra Finance and its officers would also amount to abuse of
the process of law especially for the fact that the O.P. No. 2
through his counsel has stated that his grievances have been
redressed and, therefore, he does not want to pursue the criminal
proceedings and he has already received the tractor in question.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76359 of 2024 dt.29-01-2026
8/8
18. Therefore, this Court further directs for quashing of
the entire criminal proceedings initiated on the basis of Complaint
Case No. 5993 of 2022 dated 18.07.2023 against the accused
Mahindra Finance and its officers.
19. The application stands disposed of accordingly.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
krishna/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 06.02.2026
Transmission Date 06.02.2026
Checking your session…