MAJOR K MATHIEWS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCUSED No. 3 in X -Crime No. 4483/89 on the file of Central Branch, Egmore, Madras, has filed this petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in the aforesaid case and quash the same.

(2.) THE second respondent has filed private complaint against three accused, out of whom the petitioner is the third accused before the Second Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, for offences under Sections 406 and 420 read with 109 I.P.C. The learned Magistrate had forwarded the complaint under Section 156(3) Criminal Procedure Code to the Assistant Commissioner of Police (Crimes), Central Crime Branch, Madras -8. He in turn directed the first respondent to register case and investigate the same and accordingly the case was registered in X -Crime No. 1483/89 under Sections 406 and 420, I.P.C. The allegations in the aforesaid complaint are briefly as follows :

(3.) THE first contention of the petitioner is that the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. The complainant is G.M. Buvaneswaran, Manager, M/s. B.C. Bohra, Financiers, Mahavir Colony, Madras -7. The petitioner would contend that the complainant is not the financier and he is neither the owner of the car T.S.B. 2851 nor the person who entered into the alleged hire purchase agreement and he was only a Manager and as such he cannot file the private complaint. In the First Information Report in this case, the said G.M. Bhuvaneswaran is shown as the person who gave the First Information Report. He is the Manager of the Financier which had entered into a hire purchase agreement with accused 1 and 2. The vehicle bearing Registration No. T.S.B. 2851 is subject matter of hire purchase agreement and only in respect of that vehicle, the offence is said to have been committed. While so, the Manager of the Financier is a competent person to prefer the complaint. Furthermore, both the offences which are under Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C. are cognizable offence regarding which when information was given, the concerned police officer is duty bound to investigate. In this case, the complaint has been forwarded by Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 156(3) Criminal Procedure Code, directing the police officer to investigate the cognizable offences. In the above circumstances, it cannot be stated that the complainant has got no locus standi to prefer the private complaint. I am unable to accept the contention of the petitioner in this regard.