In all the above three petitions challenge has been made to the proceeding in CR Case No.1686 C/2016 under Section 379/427 IPC, and certain orders thereof pending before the learned Addl. CJM, Kamrup and all the matters being heard and disposed of by way of this common judgment.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

2. L & T Finance Holdings Limited engaged in providing finance for purchase of commercial goods by individuals. The M/s Family Credit Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of L & T and on 5.7.2012 the Marketing Manager of M/s Family Credit Limited (as financer) entered into an agreement with Sri Ratul Das (as borrower) for financing a vehicle of Maruti Suzuki being Swipt Dzire model bearing registration no. AS-01 EC 0114 and upon failure of the borrower to repay his dues as on 16.10.2015 the vehicle was repossessed by the said financer as on 18.10.2015. All the documentation in respect of the vehicle is in the name of the borrower Sri Ratul Das and as such, said Ratul Das was informed by letter dated 28.10.2015 about the terminating of the original agreement dated 5.7.2012 with a request for immediate payment of the remaining dues within seven days in the tune of Rs.3,29,523.65. For non response from the borrower on 12.1.2016 the said vehicle was auctioned and sold to one person namely, Sri Sanjay Kataki (auction purchaser).

3. On 16.5.2016 one Sri Uma Shankar Mishra (complainant) lodged a complaint vide CR Case No.1686C/2016 against the financer and marketing Manager etc. of L & T Company in the Court of learned CJM, Kamrup contending inter alia that he has entered into an agreement with the borrower Ratul Das whereby said Ratul Das has sold the vehicle to him upon receipt of an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- with condition that said Sri Uma Shankar Mishra (complainant) will pay further amount of Rs. 10,000/- and he will pay the remaining EMI of the vehicle hypothecated to the financer L & T Finance. It was agreed in the said agreement that after liquidation of the loan to the finance company, the registration of the vehicle would be transferred in the name of the wife of the complainant Sri Uma Shankar Mishra. Further case of the complainant is that after execution of the agreement dated 8.11.2012 with said Ratul Das, the complainant has been paying the EMI regularly to the Financer M/s Family Credit Ltd. and using the vehicle by appointing a driver. It is stated in the complaint petition that in the month of September, 2015 the complainant was requested by the financer to give the said vehicle on rental basis for the official use @ Rs. 45,000/- per month and also told him that they would deduct the EMI to be paid for the vehicle and balance would be credited in the account of the complainant, to which he agreed. They intimated him that such an agreement will be made with the borrower as he is the registered owner of the vehicle and thereafter they will take delivery of the vehicle from the complainant. But, however no such payment was made in his account and suddenly on 18.10.2015 the vehicle was taken away by the said financer company from the custody of his driver Kamal Lama along with all the important documents kept inside the vehicle along with the accessories like Music System, Air Conditioner, Wins screen, Floormat Etc and the same articles were not shown in the seizure list so prepared by the company. At the time of taking such vehicle as on 18.10.2015 the signature of the driver of the vehicle was taken on a document dated 7.10.2015 which is again stated to be an agreement between the financer and the borrower that said vehicle has been utilised by the financer on a monthly rental basis of Rs.45,000/- and after adjusting the EMI the balance amount shall be deposited in the bank account of the borrower Ratul Das (the document however, bears no signature of the borrower Ratul Das, and signature of driver was shown.

4. Raising the allegation of commission of theft and breach of trust etc. against the financer, the comp