Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. A complaint was filed by opposite party no. 2 against the petitioners stating that the petitioners are connected and working for each other in Airtel Company and are responsible for the business, affairs and policies of the company. The petitioner No.1 is Chairman/Managing Director of the Airtel Company and is responsible for all the affairs and business including policies of the Company. Petitioners have floated a scheme that if any individual purchases Airtel connection under the scheme, he shall be entitled for the Air Ticket to and fro to any destination mentioned in the scheme. Opposite party no. 2 on the advertisement and allurement of the petitioners purchased three connection Nos. 9935521244, 9935502146 and 9935502145 in the name of Deepak Srivastava i.e. complainant, Meenu Srivastava and Soumya Srivastava, respectively. It was the pre condition of the scheme that the purchaser must continue the connection for three months and pay the charges in time. Opposite party no. 2 complied with the conditions and he received three free Air Ticket Forms, which were duly filled in and sent to the petitioners. Complainant and his family made preparations for travelling to south India during summer vacation in the month of May, 2006. Forms were returned by the opposite parties stating that they have not been filled in properly. When no fresh forms were sent, then a notice was sent by opposite party no 2 to the petitioners on 1.8.2006, but opposite party no.2 received a fresh form which mentions that Air Port taxes would be Rs. 1800/- instead of Rs. 442/-. Opposite part no. 2 again submitted the duly filled the form and gave the date for availing the facility in Dashera vacation, but tickets were not made available to him. Opposite party no. 2 talked to the office of Infovision Solutions, A/-2/4 (Lower G.F.), Vasant Vihar New Delhi make my Trip and the offers for the petitioners but of no use. A notice was again sent on 15.9.2006 by the opposite party no. 2.

5. On 13.10.2006 at about 11.00 a.m., the opposite party no. 2 received a telephonic call from ''make my drip' on behalf of Airtel and informed that no direct flight to the destination is available, hence the flight from Delhi to Chennai can be available before 30th October, 2006, but on inquiry by opposite party no. 2 from Railway Station, it was revealed that no reservation in any train is available from Lucknow to Delhi. Whole scheme of the opposite party no. 2 is fraud and they have connived together misrepresented, misled and played fraud with the complainant .

6. On these allegations statement of one Arvind Kumar Srivastava was recorded by the learned Magistrate. Statement of complainant was also recorded under section 200 Cr.P.C.

7. The learned Magistrate passed an order dated 13.8.2007 summoning the accused to face the trial under section 420 IPC. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioners have filed this petition for quashing the impugned orders and further proceedings of the complaint case.

8. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the learned Magistrate has passed an erroneous order, which is not tenable under the law. It is further submitted that the learned Magistrate has summoned the accused under section 420 IPC, but no ingredients of cheating could be proved. It is further submitted that it is stated in the complainant that the petitioners are the Managing Director and other connected persons of the Airtel Company, but the Airtel Company has not been arrayed as an accused in the complaint. It is further submitted that the information was given to the complainant well in time. As per the complainant assertions, he received the message on 30th October,2006, wherein 17 days' time was there for reaching Delhi, which was enough time to reach Delhi, but the complainant himself did not reach Delhi in time, hence the part on behalf of the petitioners under the agreement was completed well in reasonable time. There was no reason or mens rea to cheat the complainant by the petitioners. The offer for 30th October, 2006 was in unequivocal term. As per the scheme itself the form which was filled in by the complainant was for the destinations namely, Coimbatore, Cochin and Trivendrum. For all the three destinations flight was available from Delhi. Even in the scheme, chart of flights shows that from Lucknow the only destination is Delhi and Mumbai. It is further submitted that in the notice dated 01.08.2006, the complainant himself has mentioned that the Company has cheated and misrepresented him, but the company is not arrayed as an accused. It is further submitted that even for the sake of argument if it is accepted that he could not avail the facility of 30th of October, 2006 as proposed by the petitioners then the opposite party no. 2 complainant could have made a request for change of dates but no such request has ever been made.

13. Paras- 1 and 2 of the complaint are extracted below:-

1. "That the opposite party nos. 1 to 4 are connected and working for each other in Airtel Company and are responsible for the business of Airtel Company and its affairs and policies.

(2) That the opposite party no. 1 is the Chairman/Managing Director of the Airtel Company and is responsible for all the affairs and business of the company and its policies."

14. In all three paragraphs alongwith notice dated 1.8.2006 (paragraph-5), it is stated that "That you and your company have cheated and misrepresented for which I have no option but to take legal action." It means that the allegations have been levelled against the Airtel Company.