HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CRL.P. NO.2274 OF 2008 Date:08.07.2010 Between: Gopal Finance Corporation Ltd. …Petitioner And/- Velagala Suryanarayana and another …Respondents HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CRL.P. NO.2274 OF 2008 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.170 of 2008 passed by the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tanuku, West Godavari District. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, respondent No.1 and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State. Velagala Suryanarayana, the father of the respondent No.1 (LW1) filed complaint before the learned magistrate asserting that he purchased a lorry for an amount of Rs.1,30,000/- in the year 2004 under hire purchase and at the time of said purchase, the accused obtained signatures on stamp papers, thereafter he paid the entire loan amount and also obtained clearance certificate. Subsequently, on 08.01.2008, the son and grandson of the complainant went to Andhra Sugars, Tanuku with a load of sugarcane and when he is returning, the people of the accused came and restrained him and took away the lorry forcibly. Thereafter, they reported to Tanuku Police Station and the same is registered as Crime No.9 of 2008, and as no action was taken, the complainant filed the complaint. It has been contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the complaint is filed against the Gopal Finance Corporation Limited, represented by its Managing Partner, K.Ramachandra Rao, Morteru, Penumarthu Mandal, W.G. District showing as accused and the offence being theft of lorry, it can never be said to be theft committed by the finance company, which is a body corporate. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner the complaint was only filed owing to some dispute to harass the petitioner. He further submitted that the complainant (respondent No.1) purchased the vehicle under hire purchase; he committed default in payment of installments and the firm to which the vehicle had already been hypothecated took possession of the vehicle. It is further stated that since the dispute is purely of civil nature, filing of criminal case against the petitioner which is a financial company, is not maintainable. Considering all the aspects of the matter, I am of the view that it is not mentioned in the complaint as to who are the persons actually took away the lorry forcibly and those persons were not arrayed as accused. Since the offence itself is committing of theft of lorry under Section 379 IPC, it cannot be said to be committed by the firm. The petitioner which is a financial company, the complaint, therefore, itself is not maintainable and moreover, filing such a complaint is noting but an abuse of process of the Court. This is a fit case where the entire proceedings in relation to the complaint filed by the first respondent can be quashed. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.170 of 2008 passed by the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tanuku are quashed. ________________ Date: 08.07.2010 R. KANTHA RAO, J Kvrm HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CRL.P. NO.2274 OF 2008 Date:08.07.2010