JUDGMENT :

Shyam C. Chandak, J.

1. Present Application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking quashing and setting aside of F.I.R. bearing C.R.No. I-28 of 2010, registered with Respondent No.2-Kulgaon Police Station, Thane (Rural) for the offence punishable under Section 379 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against Applicant No.2 and others on the report lodged by Respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 opposed the Application by his affidavit-in-reply.

2. Rule was issued dated 12th October, 2012.

3. The case in hand, to some extent, is similar to the case of Priyanka Srivastava and anr. vs. State of U.P and Othrs, reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287, wherein the Apex Court observed as to, “how some unprincipled and deviant litigants can cleverly design in a casual manner to knock at the doors of the Court and Police, as if, it is a test center where multifarious experiments can take place and such clever persons can ably abuse the process of the law at their own will and desire by painting a canvas of agony by assiduous assertions made in their case though the actual intention is to harass financial institutions, without any remote remorse, to create a mental pressure on it, for it would not like to be dragged to a Court of law to face civil/criminal cases and further pressurize in such a fashion so that such financial institution would ultimately be constrained to accept ‘one time settlement’ with the fond hope that, the obstinate defaulters who had borrowed money from it would withdraw the cases instituted against them”.

3. The facts which need to be stated are as under:

3.1) That, Applicant No.1 is a public limited Company, engaged in the business of finance. Applicant No.2 is the Regional Collection Manager of the Applicant No.1 and is inter alia delegated the function of collecting due amounts from defaulting customers and take necessary steps to safeguard the interest of Applicant No.1.

3.2) That, in June-July, 2008, Respondent No.1 obtained a loan of Rs.39,00,350/- from Applicant No.1 under a ‘Loan-cum-Hypothecation-cum-Guarantee Agreement’ dated 21st July, 2008 and purchased a construction equipment viz. an Excavator being L&T Komatsu PC-200, worth Rs.47,10,000/-, out of that loan amount. Besides that, Respondent No.1 also executed an ‘Irrevocable Power of Attorney’, thereby authorizing Applicant No.1 and/or its representatives to do such act in the manner specified therein. The charge created by way of Hypothecation of the said equipment in favour of the Applicant No.1 was duly endorsed in the Insurance Policy of the said equipment. Said security was enforceable on the occurrence of any of the defaults contemplated in the Loan Agreement. Respondent No.1 also issued post dated cheques, as provided by the Loan Agreement, for the discharge of the Equated Monthly Installments (EMIs). By virtue of the terms and conditions contained in the Loan Agreement as well as irrevocable Power of Attorney, Applicant No.1 had, inter alia, a right to take possession of the equipment on occurrence of any of the events and defaults by Respondent No.1.

3.3) Respondent No.1 was obligated to repay the finance availed by him in 35 equated monthly installments (EMIs) of Rs.1,33,600/- each, covering a period of 3 years commencing from 3rd September, 2008 to 3rd August, 2011. However, from around October, 2008 itself, the cheques issued by Respondent No.1 were dishonored for the reasons “Funds Insufficient” and the above account of the Respondent No.1 was irregular. By November, 2009, there was an outstanding of about Rs.5,20,800/-against Respondent No.1. Therefore, Applicant No.1 issued a notice dated 27th November, 2009 and informed Respondent No.1 and the guarantor that Respondent No.1 failed to repay the loan amount as agreed, hence, the loan facility is recalled with immediate effect. Further, it called upon Respondent No.1 to give inspection of the equipment at certain place, as provided for in the Loan Agreement. The