Judgment :- 1. This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to call for the records relating to the First Information Report in Crime No.454 of 2014 on the file of the first respondent/Police dated 22.09.2014 and to quash the same. 2. The synopsis submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner runs as follows: SYNOPSIS The Petitioner is the Authorized Officer in the GIC Finance Limited, Madurai and the Company is providing Housing Loan and they are governed by Reserve Bank of India. The Petitioner states that one Chandrasekar borrowed the loan from the Petitioner Finance Limited and not paid the loan amount and the possession of the property was also taken by the Petitioner under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act. After taking the possession of the property, the borrower break opened the premises for that the complaint was lodged against the borrower. The Petitioner further states that the matter was in such a position the de-facto complainant one Nagarajan lodged the above complaint stating that entire loan amount was paid and the Petitioner company not returned the original documents for that the above case was registered. The Petitioner further states that the borrower of the loan not settled the entire dues and the de-facto complainant is no way connected the Petitioner Finance Limited and he is not a borrower or guarantor. Hence the Petition for quashing the First Information Report. DATES AND EVENTS S.No Date Description of document 1 19.03.2002 18.04.2002 One Chandrasekaran borrowed the Housing loan from the Petitioner Finance Limited and the amount was disbursed to the borrower in two instalments. The borrower becomes defaulter. 3 29.12.2005 13(2) Notice issued to the borrower. 4 14.08.2009 Possession Notice under Section 13(4) issued. 5 05.12.2011 Possession was taken under Section 14 of SARFEASI Act in Crl.M.P.No.875 of 2011 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai and with the assistance of the Police through Advocate Commissioner. 6 21.12.2011 The borrower paid the part amount of the loan in two times but the loan was not fully settled. 7 06.03.2012 The borrower break opened the seal put by the petitioner and for that the Petitioner lodged the complaint and receipt also issued by the first respondent Police. 6 21.12.2011 The borrower paid the part amount of the loan in two times but the loan was not fully settled. 7 06.03.2012 The borrower break opened the seal put by the petitioner and for that the Petitioner lodged the complaint and receipt also issued by the first respondent Police. 8 13.10.2012 The defacto complainant lodged the complaint stating that the entire amount was paid and the documents are not returned-The defacto complainant is no way connected with the Petitioner. 9 28.11.2012 The Petitioner appeared for the enquiry and gave the statement to the first respondent. 10 05.03.2013 14.08.2013 Statement of Accounts sent to the borrower. 11 01.08.2014 Direction Petition was filed by the defacto complainant before this Honourable Court to register the case. 12 22.09.2014 FIR registered against the Petitioner 13 08.10.2014 Direction Petition closed. 14 13.11.2014 Account Statement. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent/State and also the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and perused the records. 4. The de-facto complainant has informed of having repaid the dues owed by his Cousin to the Petitioner's concern and “No Due Certificate” not having been issued by the Petitioner's concern. In a routine manner, certain allegations of threat have been thrown in. Upon such a complaint, the second respondent has moved Crl.O.P(MD)No. 14826 of 2014 towards registration of a case and during pendency thereof, the first respondent has proceeded to register the case for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. Thereafter recording such position, this Court has disposed of the said Crl.O.P on 08.10.2014. But for allegations of threat, where regards no case stands registered, there is nothing in the complaint which would make out any offence. The synopsis which finds support in the typed-set of papers would make it clear that wrong doing is sought to be imputed to the Petitioner's concern over its legitimate actions in recovering the dues owed to it and in moving against the properties mortgaged to it. 5. In view of the above, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the First Information Report in Crime No.454 of 2014, on the file of the first respondent/Police, dated 22.09.2014 stands quashed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.