1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRI. APPLICATION NO.796 OF 2010 (M/s Maharashtra Motor Finance Limited ..vs.. M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. and others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri A.P. Chorghade, Advocate for the applicant, Shri S.V. Manohar, Advocate for non-applicant Nos.1 to 5, Shri M.R. Joharapurkar, Advocate for non-applicant No.6. CORAM : MRS. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE : 01-07- 2011 . Heard learned Counsel for the applicant-original complainant, learned Counsel for the non-applicant Nos.1 to 5 and learned Counsel for respondent No.6. 2. The applicant had filed Criminal Complaint Case No.2415/2006 against non-applicant Nos.1 to 6 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.1, Nagpur. The said complaint was under Sections 418, 420, 463 and 464 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate by order dated 18-6-2007 dismissed the said complaint. Being aggrieved thereby, the applicant preferred revision before the Sessions Court, Nagpur. By order dated 08/4/2009, the said revision came to be dismissed, hence the present application. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant company (complainant) is in the business of providing automobile finance on the basis of hire purchase agreement to needy persons who want to buy vehicles. As the 2 complainant did not have sufficient funds, it approached accused No.6, which is a finance company for providing finance. Accused No.1-Company also provides hire purchase finance for acquisition of vehicles. Accused No.6 informed applicant that they have an arrangement with accused No.1 and they can get loan on low interest from accused No.1. The applicant entered into an agreement with accused No.6 on 11-3-1996. Thereafter finance was disbursed to the applicant-complainant, which in turn was disbursed to purchasers of vehicles. The case of the complainant is that he repaid all the loan amounts to accused No.6, however accused No.6 did not release N.O.Cs. of 16/17 vehicles, hence he filed complaint as according to him the above offences are made out against all the accused persons. 4. On perusal of the complaint, it is noticed that in the complaint, the complainant has stated that there was agreement in between the complainant and accused No.6 and there was no direct agreement in between the complainant and accused No.1. In the complaint, it is further stated that “it was the arrangement in between accused Nos. 1 & 6 and there is no role of actual participation in getting the loan facility by the complainant and the customers from accused No.1, it was settlement in between accused Nos.1 and 6. That the complainant has not taken loan from the account of accused No.1 for providing the loan facility to their customers and it was taken from accused No.6 and time to time it was fully and finally repaid to accused No.6. It was the duty of accused No.6 to make the repayment of loan to the accused No.1 after making payment by the complainant to accused No.6, but accused No.6 failed to perform his duty and because on his failure the N.O.Cs. were not issued by accused 3 No.1 in favour of the customers. It is submitted that it was not the fault of the complainant or the customers but it was the fault of accused No.6 for not making payment by accused No.6 to accused No.1 and for which the complainant and the customers could not be suffered, and could not be said to be responsible.” 5. As it is admitted by the complainant that no agreement took place between him and accused No.1, there is no question of the complainant demanding the N.O.Cs. from accused No.1 or accused No.1 releasing any documents directly in his favour. On going through the complaint, it is obvious that no offence is committed by accused Nos.1 to 5. 6. As far as accused No.6 is concerned, the learned Magistrate had called for report from the police and detail report has been submitted by the police vide Exh.11. No objection was taken by the complainant to the said report. The report is a detail report running into 16 pages. This report shows that civil suit is pending between the parties. The report also shows that there is an outstanding amount of Rs.1,20,000,00/-, which is due from the complainant to accused No.6 and out of 74 NOCs which had to be given to the complainant, only 16 NOCs have been retained on account of outstanding dues. The detail report has been taken into consideration and thereafter the impugned order was passed by the learned J.M.F.C., which has been confirmed by the learned Sessions Court. 7. The learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that it is also the case of the complainant that forgery of some notices has been committed by the accused 4 persons. Admittedly, the dates of the notices are after filing of the complaint, hence it cannot be the subject matter of the complaint in question. 8. The learned Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Minu Kumari and another ..vs.. State of Bihar and others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 359, wherein it is observed that inherent power of the High Court should not exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution and High Court should refrain from giving a prima facie decision where entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when evidence is not collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. As far as this decision is concerned, it is noticed that in the present case the police have filed a detail report running into 16 pages. The said report does not implicate the non-applicants. In such case, it cannot be said that the facts are incomplete and hazy, as from the evidence collected and produced before the Court the issues factual and legal, can be seen in their true perspective from the material on record. Thus the said decision would be of no help to the applicant. 9. Thereafter the learned Counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab ..vs.. Pritam Chand and others reported in 2009(1) Crimes 370 (SC), to contend that merely because an act has a civil profile it cannot be a ground to quash a criminal case. In the present case, the complaint has been dismissed after taking into consideration the detail report filed by the police. The report does not disclose 5 commission of any offence by the respondent Nos. 1 to 6, hence, this decision would not be applicable to the facts of this case. 10. Looking to the averments in the complaint, detail report filed by the police and the facts of this case, the orders passed by the learned J.M.F.C. and Sessions Court are just, legal and proper, hence no case is made out for interference. Criminal Application is rejected. JUDGE pma