ORDER:

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed on behalf of the petitioner/A-1 to quash the proceedings dated 12.01.2020 in F.I.R.No.16/2020 of Muvvalavanipalem Police Station, Visakhapatnam District.

2. A case has been registered against the petitioner/A1 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 424 and 427 r/w.34 IPC.

3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the de facto complainant is doing Finance business under the name & style of M/s.Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited and it is providing loans to purchase vehicles under loan-cum- Hypothecation agreement basis. Accused No.1, as borrower, and Accused No.2, as a guarantor, availed loan from the company towards purchasing a vehicle Ashok Leyland AL Viking FBV-P(BUS), bearing Registration No.AP20Y5777 by executing an agreement in favour of the company and agreed to repay the amount due as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. But, the accused failed to repay the amount due under the agreement and also failed to hand over the vehicle. Hence, the complainant company issued registered lawyers notice to the accused demanding to pay the arrears of loan outstanding amount of Rs.3,20,573/- along with delayed payment and also handover the subject hypothecated vehicle along with the loan amount within 7 days. But, the accused did not handover the vehicle to 2nd respondent company. Hence, 2nd respondent company filed a private complaint before the IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Visakhapatnam under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C to refer to police. Basing on the endorsement of the IV ACMM Court, Visakhapatnam, the MVP police station registered a case in FIR.No.16 of 2020 under Section 406, 420, 424 and 427 r/w.34 IPC against the accused.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a reading of contents of FIR goes to show that only omnibus accusations have been made as against the petitioner herein, and no specific overt act has been attributed against him. The agreement between the petitioner and the de facto complainant is the hypothecation agreement and the subject vehicle has been taken over for hypothecation and the accused failed to repay the amount. He further submits that mere failure to pay the amount under hypothecation agreement would not in any way amount to offence under penal provision of law.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of 2nd respondent submits that the vehicle has been taken over by the petitioners herein and thereafter, they committed default in paying installments. Neither the money has been paid nor the vehicle has been handed over to 2nd respondent company. He further submits that as the investigation is at the nascent stage, truth or otherwise of the said accusations has to be investigated into, by the investigated agency and hence, prays to dismiss the petition.

6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of 1st respondent-State too concurred with the submissions made by the learned counsel for 2nd respondent and further stated that as per the investigation, petitioner herein has not handed over the vehicle to 2nd respondent and they are apprehending that petitioner would dismantle the vehicle.

7. Heard. Perused the record.

8. 2nd respondent is the registered company under the Companies Act, 1956. The de facto complainant is the S.P.A holder-cum-Chief Branch Collection Manager. The de facto complainant submits that the Accused No.1, being borrower, and Accused No.2, as a guarantor, availed loan from 2nd respondent company by executing an agreement and agreed to repay the amount due as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. Thereafter, inspite of several reminders and request made by the complainant company, the accused failed to repay the amount and also failed to hand over the vehicle. Hence, complainant/2nd respondent company issued registered lawyers notice to petitioner/A1 demanding to pay the arrears of loan outstanding amount of Rs.3,20,573/- al