TATINENI SRINIVAS RAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A common question of law arises in all these three criminal petitions and hence, they are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The petitioners in all these criminal petitions purchased motor vehicles with the finance of the second respondent, M/s. Midwest Growth Fund Limited, and they entered into hire purchase agreements promising to pay the said amount in monthly instalments together with interest at 16% per annum and also executed promissory notes in favour of the second respondent. According to the second respondent, the petitioners failed to pay the monthly instalments regularly and thereby defaulted in payments and accordingly the second respondent is entitled to seize the vehicles and he deputed his representative to find out and verify the condition of the vehicles and he found that the vehicles were not available on an enquiry they came to know that the petitioners disposed of the vehicles and thus committed breach of trust and hence, liable for punishment under Section 406 IPC.

(3.) The second respondent filed a private complaint against the petitioners for the said offence under Section 406 IPC and requested to refer the complaints to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.PC and the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, referred the cases to the police and the police registered cases in Cr.Nos.78/ 1997, 75/1997 and 89/1997 of Police Station, Begumpet for the offence under Section 406 IPC and issued F.I.R, and took up investigation.