ORDER

This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 07.02.2013, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Waidhan, District Singrauli in Sessions Trial No.162 of 2011 whereby charges under Sections 395 and 341 of the IPC have been framed against the applicants. 2. The case of the applicants is that the applicants are officers of Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Limited, which is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Mumbai. A loan amounting to Rs.4,75,000/- was financed from the applicants' Company to M/s J.K. Construction for purchase of a Mahindra Bolero SLE vehicle scheduled for repayment in 33 installments. First installment of Rs.17,673/- due on 26.09.2008. The firm M/s J.K. Construction (partnership firm) defaulted in making the payment of the installments. The intimation towards the same was also given to the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station, Waidhan on 21.03.2010. It is the case of the applicants that the borrower M/s J.K. Construction through its partner Mo. Zakri Siddiqui on 21.03.2010 voluntarily handed over the vehicle in question to the officials of Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Limited. Thereafter, notices were issued on 22.03.2010 to clear the remaining payment after surrendering the vehicle in question. Again a reminder was sent on 27.03.2010. Thereafter, a false and incorrect complaint has been lodged by the respondents No.1 and 2 alleging loot of the vehicle Bolero and Rs.50,000/- which was kept in a bag in the said vehicle by the applicants. The complainants i.e. respondents No.1 and 2 alleged that when they reached Village Toti, Police Station Vindhya Nagar near Mahindra Agency, the applicants who were in Bolero Jeep parked the same in front of the vehicle of the respondents No.1 and 2. They used filthy language and have committed marpeet with respondent No.2 and one Rajendra Singh and forcibly took the possession of the vehicle. It is further alleged that the applicants have forcefully taken the signatures of respondent No.2 on certain documents. When the respondent No.2 came out from the custody of the applicants then he along with partners came to the Police Station to lodge the report. With respect to the said notices which have been issued on 22.03.2010 and 27.03.2010 it is alleged that the said documents were prepared by the applicants just to avoid a registration of a criminal case and in a pre-planned manner forcefully the possession of the vehicle has been taken. When no action was taken by the Police then a private complaint was lodged by the respondents No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 341, 342, 385, 403/34 of the IPC against the applicants. The learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 07.02.2013 have framed charges against the applicants for the offence punishable under Section 395 and 341 of the IPC looking to the material available on record. Against the same, the present petition has been filed seeking quashment of charges on the grounds that once the vehicle was already surrendered voluntarily by the respondents No.1 and 2 then no question of taking forceful possession of the vehicle in question arises. The document pertaining to surrender of vehicle as well as subsequent notices which have been issued for clearing the remaining balance are a part of petition.

3. It is submitted that a false and fabricated story has been manufactured by the respondents No.1 and 2 just to create undue pressure upon the financial company and to avoid clearance of the remaining loan amount. Looking to the nature of the loan taken by the borrower M/s J.K. Construction, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the ingredients of Sections 395 and 431 of the IPC has been made out. Therefore, this petition has been filed.

4. Counsel appearing for the respondents have vehemently opposed the contentions and submitted that there is sufficient material available