SHREI INTERNATIONAL FINANCE LIMITED Vs. M G NARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. is made by the petitioner M/s. Srei International Finance Limited, Madras with its branch office at Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the 'financier Co. ') praying to quash the criminal proceedings in PCR 165/97 pending on the file of the Court of IV Addl. C. M. M. Bangalore and also challenging the order dated 9-9-1997 of the learned Magistrate referring the private complaint of respondent No. 1 M. G. Narayana ('complainant' for short) under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. to the Police Sub-Inspector (PSI) of Byatrayanpura, Bangalore City for investigation and report.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 2 Baruva is shown as the General Manager and respondent No. 3 Mr. Surendra as the Field Officer of A1 Finance Co. They are accused Nos. 2 and 3 in the said complaint. Therfore, they are hereinafter referred to as 'a2' and 'a3'. Respondent No. 4 is impleaded in the petition since the vehicle in question was purchased by him.

(3.) THE undisputed facts giving rise to this petition are as stated under :on 8-9-1997 the complainant presented his complaint under Section 200, Cr. P. C. before the learned Magistrate against A1 to A3 and another alleging commission of offences under Sections 406, 420 and 506b of I. P. C. with a prayer that the complainant may be referred to the S. H. O. of the said police station under Section 156 (3) for investigation and report. The subject-matter of the alleged offences is the Hydraulic Excavator bearing No. G. 10520. It was manufactured by the industrial concern BEML, Bangalore. The complainant's case stated in the complaint is that he is the owner of the said Excavator. It was purchased by him from BEML for Rupees 37,02,600/- with the financial assistance from A1 company. He availed the financial assistance for whole of the said price of the said Excavator from the latter (accused) by giving collatoral security of 3 persons and depositing cash Rs. 9,00,000/- as security. In this regard he has stated at para 3 of the complaint that :