Mr. Ranjit Singh, J.: - Three Criminal Miscellaneous Petition Nos. M- 32104 of 2009, 26055 and 32395 of 2010 have been filed by M/s Sundaram Finance Limited, its Area Manager A.V. Narayanan and its Branch Manager of a Branch at Ludhiana respectively, seeking quashing of a criminal complaint No.37 of 9.8.2004 titled Raj Kumar and others Vs. Sundaram Finance Limited and the summoning order dated 20.10.2007, summoning the petitioner-Company alongwith three other co-accused for offences under Sections 379, 323 and 506 IPC.

2. M/s Sundaram Finance Limited is a public limited Company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having a registered office at Chennai. The Company has Branches all over India with its Regional Office (North) at New Delhi and is a legal entity. It is a non-banking finance company carrying on business of hire-purchase/loan facility and leasing of vehicles, equipments, machinery. Respondent-complainant had approached Ludhiana Branch with a request for loan facility for purchase of Bajaj Tempo Trax 2002 model in the month of November 2002. Loan amount of Rs.2,70,000/- was advanced to Rohit Kumar (Respondent No.2) for the purchase of this vehicle having a total invoice price of Rs.3,60,000/-. Raj Kumar (respondent No.1) stood as guarantor. Loan agreement was duly executed and signed by the borrower-respondent No.2 and respondent No.1 signed as guarantor. The amount was repayable in 36 monthly instalments starting from 12.11.2002 and was to end on 10.10.2005.

3. The vehicle was purchased from Goel Automobiles, Sangrur and was hypothecated in favour of the petitioner- Company. It is pleaded that respondent No.2 was irregular in making the payment of the monthly instalments and committed default. A reminder was sent on 2.7.2003 with a copy to the guarantor to pay an arrears of Rs.30,969/-, failing which Company would feel constrained to re-possess the vehicle in terms of the agreement. Respondent No.2 is stated to have still continued to remain irregular in making the payment and Ludhiana Branch was, thus, constrained to take steps to re-possess the vehicle. One G.S.Recovery Agency, Ludhiana, was authorised by the petitioner- Company to re-possess the vehicle through a letter dated 1.12.2003, copy of which is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-6. As per the petitioner, respondent No.2 voluntarily surrendered the vehicle on 4.12.2003. At that time, outstanding amount was Rs.2,61,714/- besides incidental charges. When respondent No.2 did not make payment of the outstanding amount, the vehicle was sold for a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- on 24.12.2004. Accordingly, it is stated that a sum of Rs.1,13,042/22P was still outstanding towards respondent No.2, for which he had not come forward to make any payment. Notices were then sent on 28.2.2005 and 18.1.2007, requiring respondent No.2 to clear the outstanding amount, failing which the matter was to be referred to the Arbitrator. The matter ultimately referred to Arbitrator and respondent No.2 even did not appear before him. Arbitrator finally gave his award on 29.10.2009, directing the respondents to pay the outstanding amount with 18% interest per annum. As per the petitioner, after 8 months of having surrendered the vehicle, respondents have filed this complaint and the petitioner in these three petitions have been summoned on 20.10.2007. They have accordingly filed these petitions for quashing of the complaint and the summoning order.

4. The story, as projected by the petitioner, is belied by the averments made in the complaint. As per the respondents, accused Gurjeet Singh, Rajnish Sharma, A.V. Narayanan alongwith 4-5 persons, who can be identified, came to the petitioner on the direction issued by the Managing Director of Sundaram Finance Limited and asked the complainant to show the vehicle. These persons told the complainant that they suspect the complainant to have sold the vehicle and so wanted to check the same. The complainant has assured them tha