The central legal point established in the judgment is that a well-reputed corporate entity should only be prosecuted through proper channels, and continuing proceedings against individuals associated with such an entity, without prima facie evidence, may amount to an abuse of process of law.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, opposite party no. 2 as also learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State.

2. This petition has been filed by the applicants Tata Finance Limited, through Manager Sourav Sikdar, A.l. Rebello @ Aubery Ignotius Rebello, Sourav Sikdar and Sudip Roy, who are office bearers of Tata Finance Limited (hereinafter referred to as TFL for sake of convenience), for quashing the order dated 19.12.2005 passed by Sri S.K. Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, Patna, in Complaint Case No. 2101(C)/2003, whereby cognizance, against the petitioners for the purpose of their trial for the offences punishable under Ss. 406, 420 and 120B of Indian Penal Code, has been taken.

3. Facts giving rise to the present application in short is that a Complaint case as stated above was filed in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, agianst the petitioners and two others, by Opposite party no. 2 Ranju Devi in respect of the offences having been committed in between 28.3.2003 and 15.9.2003 alleging therein that Opposite party no. 2 Ranju Devi purchased Tata-407 mini Truck bearing Registration No. BR-O1G-1690 for a sum of Rs. 1,40,000.00 (Rupees One lac and forty thousand) on 28.3.2003 in auction sale from Petitioner No. 3 Sourav Sikdar and thereby a No Objection Certificate to District Transport authority for transfer of ownership in the name of the complainant as also money receipt was issued by the TFL. It has been further stated that necessary form for transfer of ownership was also issued which was signed by Petitioner No. 3 Sourav Sikdar who is Manager, Recovery and Repossession, Tata Finance Limited at Kolkata, having its office at Apeejay House, 8th Floor, Block-B, 15, Park Street, Kolkata-700016, to Opposite party no. 2 Ranju Devi. Petitioner No. 3 Sourav Sikdar also directed the New Prabhat Roadways, Barh, to deliver the vehicle to the complainant-O.P. No. 2 Ranju Devi where the vehicle had been parked. The vehicle in question was also inspected by the complainant alongwith her men in presence of representatives of TFL and the same was found in very good condition having all the four tyres new. It has been further alleged that on 8.4.2003 the complainant-O.P. alongwith her companion went to accused no. 5 Ram Bilash Yadav, Proprietor, M/s New Prabhat Roadways, Gulabbagh, Barh (who is not petitioner here) for taking delivery of the said vehicle. But the complainant was refused to take delivery of the vehicle on the pretext that the same would be delivered after ten days in consultation with the TFL and, thereafter, inspite of her repeated request, she was refused delivery of the same and was also abused.

4. It has also been alleged that inspite of two letters dated 8.4.2003 and 12.6.2003 issued to accused No. 5 Ram Bilash Yadav by Director of Maurya Motors, a representative of TFL, the vehicle in question was not delivered to the complainant- O.P. No. 2 and after being fed up with the behaviour of accused No. 5 Ram Bilash Yadav, she requested Petitioner No. 3 Sourav Sikdar in writing on 26.5.2003. But he also did not pay any heed to it. On her frequent visit, the complainant found many spare parts of the vehicle missing and all its new tyres were also replaced by old ones and inspite of her complaints to the petitioners, delivery of the vehicle was not made till 15.9.2003.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while assailing the impugned order, has submitted that the vehicle in question was given to the husband of the complainant under the Hire Purchase Agreement (HPA) and when he defaulted in making payment of monthly instalment inspite of repeated request, the vehicle was repossessed on 25.7.2000 and was parked at New Prabhat Roadways, Barh, whose proprietor is Ram Bilash Yadav. When even after re-possession the hirer i.e. the husband of the complainant did not pay the amount, the financier i.e. TFL proposed to auction sale the vehicle and, accordingly, it was auction