Jharkhand High Court
Anil Kumar & Ors. vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors. on 21 January, 2015
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 339 of 2002
---
1.Anil Kumar
2.Rajan Kumar both sons of Sahadeo Prasad,
resident of Sashtri Nagar, PS Bank More, Distt Dhanbad
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Satyendra Kumar Singh, Administrative Officer,
Allied Refractories Private Limited authorised representative
of Allied Refractories Pvt. Ltd, Gobindpur,
PO & PS Govindpur, District Dhanbad ... ... Opposite Party
---
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Advocate
For the Opposite Party No. 1 : A.P.P.
---
9/21.01.2015Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.
2. No one appears on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 in spite of valid service of notice.
3. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C. P. Case No. 1352 of 1998 including the order dated 03.04.1999 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Dhanbad by which cognizance has been taken under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. It appears that a complaint case was instituted by the opposite party no. 2 herein in which it was stated that the accused persons who are the dealers of Daewoo Motors Ltd. had made wide publicity about the quality and performance with respect to Ceilo car and have dishonestly presented that Daewoo India Ltd. has also floated a car exchange scheme. It was alleged that having been convinced, the complainant under the exchange scheme exchanged his Maruti 1000 car and the exchange value of the complainant's car was Rs. 2,60,000/- out of the total value of the new Ceilo car. It was further stated that the balance consideration amount was not demanded by the accused persons since they knew that the Ceilo car bearing registration no. BR-17D/8757 was a defective car. Subsequently, the complainant - opposite party no. 2 came to know that the Ceilo car -2- which was delivered to him was an old car and had many manufacturing defects, but in spite of repeated complaints the defects were not removed ultimately leading to filing of the complaint case.
5. After inquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. was made by examining the complainant under solemn affirmation and also examining two witnesses, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad vide order dated 03.04.1999 was pleased to take cognizance for the offence under Section 420 of I.P.C.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order taking cognizance on the ground that the perusal of the complaint petition reveals that the complaintant - opposite party no. 2 herein has not alleged any criminal offence on the part of the petitioner. He has stated that the entire defects which have cropped up in the Ceilo car purchased by the complainant was in relation to an exchange scheme floated by the Daewoo Motors Ltd. He has further submitted that the present case is purely a case of a civil nature for which the opposite party no. 2 has already instituted a suit.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the records, I find that with respect to the alleged exchange scheme floated by the Daewoo Motors Ltd. and pursuant to which the complainant had exchanged his Maruti 1000 for a new Ceilo car of Daewoo Motors Ltd., a title suit has also been filed prior to institution of this complaint case being Title Suit No. 130 of 1998 in which a prayer has been made that the plaintiff (complainant) is not liable to pay the price of a new Ceilo car to the defendant no. 1 for the defective car bearing registration no. BR-17D/8757. In the said suit a further declaration was sought for to the effect that the defect at the time of delivery of the car to the plaintiff (complainant) by a new car dealer cannot be legally treated as a new car nor can it render the plaintiff (complainant) liable to pay the price of a new car. It thus appears that the complainant - opposite party no. 2 had opted for an appropriate forum for redressing his grievances by filing a title suit and with respect to the same subject-matter immediately thereupon he filed a complaint case. The learned Judicial Magistrate while taking cognizance on 03.04.1999 failed to take into consideration paragraph 6
(xii) of the complaint petition wherein it has been specifically stated by the complainant that the complainant has lodged a suit for injunction, -3- declaration etc. against the Classic Automobiles and D.C.M., Daewoo Motors India Ltd. in the court of Munsif 1st, Dhanbad being Title Suit No. 130 of 1998. This fact has obviously escaped the attention of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad while taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offence mentioned therein. After considering the entire aspects of the matter and on the basis of what has been discussed above, I find merit in this application.
8. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C. P. Case No. 1352 of 1998 pending in the court of Sri V. K. Tiwary, Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Dhanbad including the order taking cognizance dated 03.04.1999 is quashed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J) R. Shekhar Cp 3