( 1 ) SECOND respondent as Managing Director of the first respondent company, registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, lodged a private complaint before the magistrate, alleging inter alia that he, who is a graduate in Chemical Engineering, had approached the first petitioner (Andhra pradesh State Financial Corporation, hyderabad-herein after referred to as a. P. S. F. C.) through petitioners 2 and 3 (i. e. , senior Branch Managers of first respondent corporation at Rajahmundry and Guntur) for a loan for the purpose of first respondent and that he was sanctioned a loan of Rs. 14. 1 lakhs, and after repaying some amount, since he had some difficulty in running the first respondent industry, he leased it out to m/s. Srinivasa Minerals and Services, rajahmundry, who, apprehending trouble from petitioners 1 and 2, had filed a suit and obtained an injunction restraining petitioners 1 and 2 from interfering with its peaceful possession and enjoyment of the premises of the 1st respondent, and so petitioners started spreading a rumorthat 1 st respondent is a sick Unit and that it is ready for sale, and that they in conspiracy with A-4 and A-5, took away the machinery from the premises of the 1st respondent for the benefit of A-4 and a-5 on 22-06-1990 by threatening the watchman of the premises, with the help of their henchmen and that police to whom he gave a report failed to take action. ( 2 ) AFTER recording the sworn statement of the 2nd respondent, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint under sections 120-A, 342, 352, 357, 392, 405, 425 read with Section 34 of IPC and registered the same as C. C. No. 802 of 2001. ( 3 ) THIS petition is filed by petitioners who are shown as A-1 to A-3 to quash the complaint against them. ( 4 ) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that since 1 st petitioner (A. P. S. F. C.) is but an artificial person, its entering into a conspiracy with others, or its committing any of the offences under IPC taken cognizance of by the learned magistrate, does not and cannot arise. ( 4 ) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that since 1 st petitioner (A. P. S. F. C.) is but an artificial person, its entering into a conspiracy with others, or its committing any of the offences under IPC taken cognizance of by the learned magistrate, does not and cannot arise. It is his contention that since petitioners 2 and 3 are described as Senior Branch Manager, a. P. S. F. C. Rajahmundry and Senior Branch manager, A. P. S. F. C. Guntur, respectively, it is clear that the offices, but not the persons who are manning those offices are made the accused and since offices cannot commit offences under IPC taken cognizance of by the learned Magistrate and since second respondent in his sworn statement or the complaint did not even state the names of the incumbents of the offices of petitioners 2 and 3 at the time of the alleged offence, the present incumbents of those offices, who have no connection with the offences alleged, are obliged to attend the Court for every hearing, for no fault of theirs, and since there is no vicarious liability for the acts allegedly committed by the previous incumbent of the office to his successor in office, question of the Court proceeding against new incumbents to the office, on the ground that they are the senior Branch Managers of A. P. S. F. C. at rajahmundry and Guntur does not arise and so prosecution of the petitioners, who are all impersonal, for offences under IPC taken cognizance of by the learned Magistrate is against all the cannons of Criminal jurisprudence and so the complaint against the petitioners is liable to be quashed. It is also his contention that consequent on the respondents 1 and 2 committing default in payment of the amount borrowed first respondent, after it was seized under section 29 of the State Financial Corporation act, sold the machinery in public auction in favour of Aarathi Chemical products Private limited (A-4), and aggrieved by the said sale, second respondent got filed a suit in the name of his wife and obtained an order of status quo on 17-06-1988 and later got another suit filed by a person claiming to be lessee of the 1 st respondent and obtained order of injunction on the same day i. e. , on 17-06-1988 against petitioners 1 and 2, restraining them from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the 1st respondent Unit and the 2nd respondent himself filed another suit challenging the sale made by the 1st petitioner and obtained interim orders, preventing the purchaser (A-4) from obtaining possession of the Unit purchased by him, and thereafter A-4 filed a suit against the 1 st petitioner, 1 st respondent and four others and obtained interim order in i. A. No. 727 of 1990, restraining the defendants therein from interfering with its peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property purchased by it and from shifting the machinery from the premises of the 1st respondent and in pursuance of that injunction orders, A-5, representing A-4, seems to have entered into the premises of the 1st respondent and shifted the machinery, and that even the 1st petitioner, after receiving a report from the watchman of the 1st respondent Unit, lodged a complaint with the police against A-5 about his lifting machinery, and so, the complaint against the petitioners is liable to be quashed. ( 5 ) THE contention of the learned Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 is that since the machinery in the premises of the 1st respondent was forcibly taken away by petitioners and others and since this Court in a proceeding under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. , cannot go into the defence of the accused, and should only go by the averments in the complaint and documents produced by the complainant and since the sworn statement of 2nd respondent and the documents produced by him clearly make out the offences alleged, there are no grounds to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. ( 6 ) HEARD the learned Public Prosecutor. ( 6 ) HEARD the learned Public Prosecutor. ( 7 ) AS rightly contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioners since A. P. S. F. C. is but a body corporate and is not an individual, and can act only through somebody else, but not by itself, it cannot have either an intention to commit, or commit, the offences which the learned Magistrate took cognizance, and so question of prosecuting A. P. S. F. C. for any of the offences, taken cognizance by the learned magistrate, does not arise. Even assuming that the then Managing Director of A. P. S. F. C. conspired with the purchaser of the 1st respondent Unit, who seems to have taken away the machinery, the crime is committed by that person in his individual capacity, and so his successor in office cannot be made liable vicariously for the criminal acts of his predecessor in office. If respondents intended to make liable the then Managing Director of a. P. S. F. C. they should have named him as an accused, but cannot make the A. P. S. F. C. an accused since, it, by itself, cannot wrongfully confine, assault, rob, misappropriate or cause mischief. Therefore, the learned Magistrate was in error in taking cognizance of the complaint against the 1st petitioner (A. P. S. F. C.) under Secs. 120-A, 342, 352, 357, 392, 405, 525 read with section 34 of IPC. ( 8 ) IT is well known that incumbents of offices in the public sector undertakings would be subjected to transfers. If an incumbent of an office in any institution had committed an offence under IPC, prosecution can be launched against him in his individual capacity, but not against the office held by him at the time of commission of the office, because the office , as such, held by him cannot commit an offence under any of the sections under which the learned Magistrate took cognizance. Since a senior Branch manager, A. P. S. F. C. is an office, but not an individual capable of committing offences, taken cognizance of by the learned magistrate, complaint against petitioners 2 and 3 also is liable to be quashed. Since a senior Branch manager, A. P. S. F. C. is an office, but not an individual capable of committing offences, taken cognizance of by the learned magistrate, complaint against petitioners 2 and 3 also is liable to be quashed. ( 9 ) THE averment in the petition that 4th respondent obtained an injunction from a competent Court restraining the 1 st petitioner, 1st respondent and others from interfering with its peaceful possession and enjoyment and lifting the machinery from the premises of the 1 st respondent, is not denied or disputed by respondents 1 and 2. When the machinery is lifted by 4th respondent under the orders of court, question of making the petitioners vicariously liable for the acts of the 4th respondent, would but be an abuse of the process of law. ( 10 ) IT is well known that when the criminal proceedings are initiated as an abuse the process of Court, this Court can interfere and quash the proceedings under Section 482 cr. P. C. ( 11 ) THEREFORE, the petition is allowed and proceedings in C. C. No. 802 of 2001 against the petitioners are liable to be and hence are quashed.