ORDER P.S. Rana, J. Present petition is filed under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for quashing FIR No. 32 dated 27.4.2015 registered under Sections 420 and 406 IPC in police station New Shimla. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE : 2. Vehicle No. HP 27A-0925 Honda Brio owned by non-petitioner No.2 Dr. Sonam Negi was insured with Bajaj allianz general insurance company limited w.e.f. 29.6.2014 to 28.6.2015. On dated 17.4.2015 at 2 PM non-petitioner No.2 namely Dr. Sonam Negi was on his way to IGMC Shimla and when he reached near IGMC Shimla another vehicle i.e. Pick-up suddenly came from another direction with high speed and thereafter non-petitioner No.2 Dr. Sonam Negi suddenly lost control of the vehicle and vehicle was hit with the road side retaining wall. Vehicle No. HP 27A-0925 sustained damage and thereafter vehicle No. HP 27A-0925 was got repaired by M/s Lally automobiles private limited Shimla (HP) authorized service dealer of Bajaj allianz general insurance company Limited. Vehicle No. HP 27A-0925 was handed over to Lally automobiles (India) private limited Kanlog by pass Khalini for repair on dated 19.4.2015. M/s Lally automobiles private limited submitted proforma invoice bill of repair to the tune of Rs.20463/- (Twenty thousand four hundred sixty three). When non-petitioner No.2 Dr. Sonam Negi went to service center of Lally automobiles private limited to take back his vehicle M/s Lally automobiles private limited refused to deliver the vehicle No.HP-27-A-0925 (Honda Brio) for non payment of repair charges. In the meanwhile Bajaj allianz general insurance company limited sought surveyor report from Arora associates. Arora associates on dated 21.4.2015 conducted survey of vehicle at M/s Lally automobiles private limited Shimla and submitted report that damages upon vehicle was deliberately created/manufactured by either the dealer or insured. Surveyor namely Arora associates fixed tentative liability as per annexure-1 to the tune of Rs.19451.20 (Nineteen thousand four hundred fifty one and twenty paisa) and returned the claim filed to Bajaj allianz general insurance company limited for perusal. Thereafter on dated 27.4.2015 Bajaj allianz general insurance company limited sent a letter to non-petitioner No.2 namely Dr. Sonam Negi that as per physical inspection of vehicle and as per survey report loss as narrated by non-petitioner No.2 Dr. Sonam Negi was misrepresentation of facts and violation of utmost good faith and violation of breach of insurance contract. Thereafter on dated 27.4.2015 Bajaj allianz general insurance company limited sent a letter to non-petitioner No.2 namely Dr. Sonam Negi that as per physical inspection of vehicle and as per survey report loss as narrated by non-petitioner No.2 Dr. Sonam Negi was misrepresentation of facts and violation of utmost good faith and violation of breach of insurance contract. Bajaj allianz general insurance company limited sought response from non-petitioner No.2 namely Dr. Sonam Negi within seven days from the date of receipt of letter as to why damaged claim of vehicle No. HP-27-0925 filed by non-petitioner No.2 namely Dr. Sonam Negi should not be repudiated. On dated 27.4.2015 FIR No. 32 was registered in police station New Shimla under Sections 420 and 406 IPC at the instance of non-petitioner No.2 Dr. Sonam Negi against Lally automobiles (India) private limited Kanlog by pass Khalini and against Bajaj allianz general insurance company limited. 3. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of State and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-petitioners No. 2 and 3 and also perused the contents of petition filed under Section 482 Cr.PC and court also carefully perused contents of response filed by non-petitioners No. 1 to 3. 4. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that non-petitioner No.3 D.W.Negi is the Superintendent of Police Shimla as of today and non-petitioner No.2 Dr. Sonam Negi is the son-in-law of Superintendent of Police Shimla and at the instance of non-petitioner No.3 present FIR No. 32 dated 27.4.2015 was registered contrary to law against Bajaj allianz general insurance company limited and on this ground petition filed under Section 482 Cr.PC be allowed is decided accordingly for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. During the course of arguments Sh. R.M. Bisht learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of State of HP submitted that no criminal challan is filed against Bajaj allianz general insurance company limited. Sh. R.M. Bisht learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of non-petitioner No.1 submitted that criminal investigation stood completed in the present case and criminal challan already stood filed in the learned trial Court under Section 173 Cr.PC against Amarjeet Singh Arora and Bhupinder Singh @ Pawan in personal capacity. It is held that in view of the submission of Sh. R.M. Bisht learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of non-petitioner No.1 submitted that criminal investigation stood completed in the present case and criminal challan already stood filed in the learned trial Court under Section 173 Cr.PC against Amarjeet Singh Arora and Bhupinder Singh @ Pawan in personal capacity. It is held that in view of the submission of Sh. R.M. Bisht learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of non-petitioner No.1 that no criminal challan is filed against Bajaj allianz general insurance company limited Court is of the opinion that it is expedient in the ends of justice to quash FIR No.32 dated 27.4.2015 against Bajaj allianz general insurance company only. 5. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that matter in dispute is purely of civil nature based on terms and conditions of insurance policy and on this ground petition filed under Section 482 Cr.PC by Bajaj allianz insurance company limited be allowed is also decided accordingly for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. State of HP has filed response through Sanjay Kumar presently posted as Director general of police HP. Sh Sanjay Kumar Director general of police has also filed affidavit along with response. There is recital in the response that during investigation it was observed that Amarjeet Singh Arora did not personally visit at the place of survey i.e. M/s Lally automobiles private limited Kanlog by pass Khalini on dated 21.4.2015 but directed Sh Bhupinder Singh @ Pawan to submit survey report. There is recital in the response filed by State of HP that Amarjeet Singh Arora surveyor directed Bhupinder Singh @ Pawan to visit at M/s Lally automobiles private limited service center at Shimla and thereafter Bhupinder Singh @ Pawan visited service center at M/s Lally automobiles private limited Shimla on dated 21.4.2015 and thereafter Amarjeet Singh Arora surveyor submitted survey report to Bajaj allianz general insurance company limited on the basis of derived knowledge submitted by Bhupinder Singh @ Pawan. There is recital in the response filed by State of HP through Sh. Sanjay Kumar Director general of police HP that Bhupinder Singh @ Pawan is not authorized surveyor appointed by Bajaj allianz general insurance company limited. It is admitted fact that investigation is completed in the present case. It is admitted fact on record that no criminal challan is filed against Bajaj allianz general insurance company limited. Sanjay Kumar Director general of police HP that Bhupinder Singh @ Pawan is not authorized surveyor appointed by Bajaj allianz general insurance company limited. It is admitted fact that investigation is completed in the present case. It is admitted fact on record that no criminal challan is filed against Bajaj allianz general insurance company limited. It is admitted fact that challan already stood filed in the learned trial Court against Amarjeet Singh Arora and Bhupinder Singh @ Pawan in personal capacity. Amarjeet Singh Arora and Bhupinder Singh @ Pawan did not file any petition under Section 482 Cr.PC for quashing FIR No. 32 dated 27.4.2015. It is held that it is expedient in the ends of justice to quash FIR No.32 dated 27.4.2015 against Bajaj allianz general insurance company limited only. 6. Submission of learned Deputy Advocate General that after investigation no criminal challan is filed against Bajaj allianz general insurance company limited before any competent criminal court of law and Bajaj allianz general insurance company limited has no locus standi to file petition under Section 482 Code of criminal procedure 1973 for quashing FIR No. 32 dated 27.4.2015 and on this ground petition filed by Bajaj allianz insurance company limited be dismissed is rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court has carefully perused FIR No. 32 dated 27.4.2015. In FIR No. 32 of 2015 name of insurance company is recorded. FIR is recorded under sections 420 and 406 IPC. Criminal offence under Sections 420 and 406 IPC are cognizable offence. Bajaj allianz general insurance company limited deals in commercial business. Commercial business of Bajaj allianz general insurance company will be adversely effected if name of insurance company is allowed to continue in FIR No. 32 of 2015. Hence it is held that Bajaj allianz general insurance company limited has locus standi to file petition under Section 482 code of criminal procedure to quash FIR No. 32 of 2015 against Bajaj allianz general insurance company limited to protect commercial business. 7. It is held that FIR No. 32 dated 27.4.2015 is quashed against Bajaj allianz general insurance company limited only. Observation made hereinabove is strictly for the purpose of deciding the present petition and shall not effect merits of the case in any manner. Petition filed under Section 482 Cr PC is disposed of. All pending application(s) if any are also disposed of.