Sandeep Kumar, J.—Heard the parties.

2. This application has been filed for quashing the F.I.R. vide Ramkrishna Nagar P.S. Case No. 396 of 2019 registered under Sections 406, 420, 379 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860.

3. As per the F.I.R., the informant had purchased a tractor and had taken loan facility from Tata Capital Financial Services Limited, for which he paid Rs. 16000 monthly installments. It is alleged that on 13.10.2018 the petitioner who is Collection Manager, and other employees of the Tata Capital Financial Services Limited took a key of the tractor from the informant and took away the tractor by saying that upon payment of outstanding installments his tractor will be returned. It is also alleged hat the informant made payment of Rs. 8000 on 10.09.2018 and requested the petitioner to return his tractor but the petitioner did not accept his request. Thereafter, the informant issued a legal notice to the petitioner. In reply of the said legal notice, it has been stated that the tractor of the petitioner has been sold.

4. Despite valid service of notice, no one appears on behalf of opposite party no.5 - informant.

5. The State has not filed any counter affidavit in this case.

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the informant made serious defaults in repayment of the loan amount despite repeated reminders of the Company which is evident from the Statement of Accounts. The informant has filed the instant F.I.R. with completely false and fabricated allegations with an ulterior motive to put undue pressure upon the finance Company by falsely implicating its employees to deny its legitimate payment.

7. He further submits that the Company issued several reminders to the informant seeking the payment of loan, however, the informant ignored all the reminders and did not make any payment, resultantly, the Company issued Loan Recall Notice dated 17.02.2018 seeking the payment and informing the invocation of arbitration proceedings in case of non-payment of the loan amount.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the informant did not pay any heed to any of the notices sent to him and subsequently, the matter was referred to Arbitration. It is submitted that the informant neither appeared before the learned Arbitrator nor made any written/oral submission and an ex parte award dated 26.06.2018 was passed, whereby the Company was directed to sell the vehicle to realize the debts and further the borrower was directed to hand over the vehicle. Thereafter, the said vehicle was repossessed in light of the order passed by learned Arbitrator in due compliance of all the direction issued by Reserve Bank of India and guidelines laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Company duly intimated the local police station about the repossession vide pre repossession and post repossession letter dated 15.10.2018.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Company outsources the repossession of vehicle to a Repossession Agency which is a different entity engaged in the business of repossession of vehicle and no employee of the Company takes part in the act of repossession of the vehicle.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the repossession of the said vehicle was done by an authorized repossession agency, i.e., Abhishek Repo Agency under specific direction of the Company on the basis of legal orders and the petitioner has not participated in the act of repossession and thus no criminal offence can be fastened against the petitioner.

11. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even if the entire allegation is assumed to be true, no offence can be made out against the petitioner.

12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. I have also gone through the materials available on record including the F.I.R. From the records it appears that the petitioner is the Collection Manager in Tata Capital Financial Services Limite