1. These are two (2) groups of petitions which are being disposed of together in order to avoid overlapping consideration of identical questions of law and facts. The first group of petitions comprise of petitions filed by Mahindra and Mahindra Co. Ltd. and its officers. Another group of petitions comprise of petitions filed by Ramnivas Kachardas Bhandari, who is respondent No. 2 in the first group of petitions.

2. By Writ Petition No. 108/1999, petitioners Mahindra and Mahindra Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "M&MC Ltd.", for sake of brevity) and others seek quashing of process issued in and proceedings of a private complaint case instituted by respondent No. 2 - Ramnivas bearing R.C.C. No. 104/1998 pending on file of learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Aurangabad, for offences punishable under section 467, 468, 420, 409, 471 read with section 34 of the I.P. Code against them. They filed Criminal Application No. 472/1999 seeking production of certain documents in the above writ petition. Anand Mahindra and others filed remaining two (2) petitions in the first group seeking quashing of first information reports registered vide Crimes No. I-196/1997 and No. I-218/1997 at CIDCO Police Station, Aurangabad for offences punishable under section 406 and 420 read with section 34 of the I.P. Code.

3. Petitioner Ramnivas seeks quashing of first information report registered against him vide Crime No. 196/1997, at CIDCO Police Station, Aurangabad for offences punishable under section 406, 420 read with section 34 of the I.P. Code and first information report registered vide Crime No. 31/1997 at Tofkhana Police Station, Ahmednagar, for offences punishable under section 420, 467 and 468 of the I.P. Code. His third petition (Criminal Application No. 1700/1997) is for anticipatory bail in context of the first information report registered vide Crime No. 97/1997 at CIDCO Police Station, Aurangabad.

4. Indisputably, since 1991, petitioner Ramnivas Bhandari was running business as dealer of Tractors of M&MC Ltd., in the name and style as "Nath Automobiles, Aurangabad". The dealership was approved by M&MC Ltd. as per terms of the dealership agreement. The dealership agreement was to the effect that M&MC Ltd. would provide tractors and trolley vehicles to Nath Automobiles on cash payment basis. The agreement was to transact business on principal to principal basis. Admittedly, Nath Automobiles was not agent or subagent of M&MC Ltd. There is no dispute about the fact that M&MC Ltd. raised certain objections regarding working of the proprietary firm run by petitioner Ramnivas Bhandari i.e. Nath Automobiles in the year 1996. By letter dated 31st July, 1996, the latter was informed to obtain and provide Letter of Credit (L/C) for Rs. 10 lacs as per the agreement. It appraised Nath Automobiles regarding complaints received from customers pertaining to malpractices adopted in the business and false assurances given regarding delivery of the tractor vehicles. It was further informed to Nath Automobiles that decision was, therefore, taken to terminate dealership agreement as per clause (18) thereof. Petitioner - Ramnivas Bhandari, however, continued to accept the orders from customers for supply of the tractors. He urged for continuation of the dealership. He also assured to open a Letter of Credit for Rs. 20 lacs in name of M&MC Ltd. By his letter dated 1st October, 1996, he further assured the Company that demand drafts will not be accepted from the customers by him in the name of M&MC Ltd., but all the dealings will be done through the Letter of Credit only. The proposal was accepted on the conditions mentioned in the letter and production of Letter of Credit from the Bank. The arrangement could not be worked out seemingly because he did not produce the Letter of Credit, as assured.

5. In the meanwhile, some of the customers from whom orders were accepted by Nath Automobiles made complaints against the dealer for non-delivery of the v