The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for caution and circumspection in exercising extraordinary powers under the law, particularly in the context of criminal complaints and the application of section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.

By this Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and invoking section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 as well, the Petitioners are seeking to quash a criminal complaint being M. E. R. C. No. 7 of 2006 and an order passed therein, under section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, pursuant to which, a FIR has been registered at Azad Maidan Police Station, Mumbai.

2) The Petitioners are inter alia M/s. General Insurance Corporation Finance Limited (M/s. GIC Finance Limited). It is a public limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and having its corporate office at the address mentioned in the cause title. Petitioner No. 1 is promoted by General Insurance Corporation of India and other insurance companies being M/s. United India Company Limited, M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, M/s. New India Assurance Company Limited etc. Petitioner No. 2 is the managing director and Petitioner No. 3 is the Assistant Vice President. The other Petitioners are the executives and high level officers including Chairman and Managing Directors of the aforenoted insurance companies.

3) The first Respondent is the State and the second Respondent is the original complainant.

4) At the outset, it must be stated that this Petition was not assigned to us and as per our current Roster. It was assigned to a Division Bench presided over by Her Ladyship Hon'ble Mrs. Justice V.K. Tahilramani. However, the record indicates that this Petition could not be taken up by the Bench presided over by Her Ladyship and equally by the other Bench which is presided over by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjit More.

5) On a request and submission in writing of the Registrar (Judicial – I) dated 15th July, 2015, this Writ Petition was assigned to our Bench by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice.

6) Pursuant to such a direction, Respondent No. 2 – party-in-person made repeated requests that this Writ Petition which was placed for hearing and final disposal on our Weekly Board, is not being taken up. He being a party-in-person and aged about 70 years, he finds it inconvenient to attend the Court frequently. Therefore, we accepted and granted his request and that is how the Writ Petition was placed before us for hearing and final disposal out of turn. Accordingly, it was heard extensively by us on 11th August, 2015 and today we placed it for Judgment.

7) The facts and briefly stated in the memo of the Writ Petition are that the second Respondent, along with his wife Norma Louis approached Petitioner No. 1 and requested to advance a housing loan of Rs.4 lacs. That is stated to be for purchasing of a flat/residential property at Mumbai. The application in writing is dated 20th November, 1995. The second Respondent to this Writ Petition being co-applicant executed all the documents and furnished a guarantee as well. Accordingly, Petitioner No. 1 agreed and sanctioned the loan and issued a letter of offer dated 22nd March, 1996 to that effect. That incorporates several terms and conditions. They were accepted by Respondent No. 2 and his wife and that is how their signatures were subscribed thereto. Thereafter, the second Respondent and his wife issued a letter dated 3rd April, 1996 to the Sub-Registrar of Assurances, Mumbai with a request to handover the original agreement for sale dated 15th November, 1995 executed with M/s. Laxmi Corporation for purchase of the flat in order to create a equitable mortgage of the flat. That is how the security interest was created and the asset is termed as a “secured asset” by the Petitioners. The further documents and receipts acknowledge the receipt of the housing loan.

8) According to the Petitioners, there was a default committed in the payment of the housing loan. Therefore, demand was raised and in writing. There was an offer, which was made on 27th September, 2005 by Respondents to pay a sum of Rs.1,32,962/- in full and final settlement of the loan l