Judgment D.G. Deshpande, J.— Heard Senior Counsel Mr. P.R. Vakil for the petitioners and the Respondent No. 1, who also happens to be an advocate, in person. 2. Writ petition is filed for quashing the proceedings challenging the issuance of process initiated by Respondent No. 1 under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioners have directly come to this Court with-out approaching the Magistrate. 3. A complaint under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was filed by Respondent No. 1 on the following facts :- Respondent No. 1 purchased a Maruti Car on 19-5-1999 from accused No. 1 who are authorised Dealers and Service Centre of Maruti Udyog Ltd. i.e., the petitioners. Respondent No. 1 has taken loan for purchasing the car. He was given warranty of one year along with the car. However, from 24-8-1999 the vehicle started giving trouble. Accele-rator was not working properly and respondent, who was driving the car at the time, was almost to hit a lamp post near his house as the vehicle’s speed accelerated suddenly. On that day he went to the office of accused No. 1 at Pune and brought to their notice the problem. A mechanic was sent and in turn, Respondent No. 1 was informed by accused No. 2 work shop that there was a manufacturing defect, but malfunctioning part was satisfactorily attended to. He was also assured that problem would not arise again. Respondent No. 1, therefore, took the delivery of the car. 4. However, on 29-8-2002 the accelerator paddle again got stuck while respondent No. 1 was pro-ceeding to Bombay. He telephoned the aforesaid work shop of the petitioners at Pune. The vehicle was collected from his residence on that evening. Respondent No. 1 lodged a complaint accused No. 3 and, thereafter correspondence ensued between the respondent No. 1 and the petitioners. The complaint contains that he has been cheated. The complainant also wrote to Suzuki Motor Corporation, collaborater of the Maruti Udyog Ltd. He was asked to contact the petitioners. According to the dealer the car was thereafter repaired and was made ready for delivery, but the complainant did not take delivery. The complaint contains that he has been cheated. The complainant also wrote to Suzuki Motor Corporation, collaborater of the Maruti Udyog Ltd. He was asked to contact the petitioners. According to the dealer the car was thereafter repaired and was made ready for delivery, but the complainant did not take delivery. According to the complainant since the manufacturing defect was to be rectified by the manufacturer and since he was cheated and since the problem that has cropped, he was likely to endanger his life, he filed complaint of cheating against the petitioners and others. 5. After verification of the com-plaint, the matter was sent to the police for investigation. After the police filed report, the Magistrate issued process, which is challenged in the present writ petition. 6. Mr. Vakil, Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, raised three contentions. Firstly, according to him, the petitioners had sold the car to the dealer accused No. 2, and thereafter, the petitioners have no concern with the car and, it was the sole responsibility of the dealer to take care of the defects in the car Secondly, according to Mr. Vakil, once the car was so sold, the petitioners have no con-cerned, and even for manufacturing defect, it was the responsibility of the dealer. Any warranty given by dealer was not binding on the petitioners. Further, according to him, the dealer was not an agent or representative of the petitioners, but was the purchaser of the cars as per the agreement between them. Mr. Vakil also conten-ded that there was no misrepresen-tation of any kind by and on behalf of the petitioners nor any inducement to the respondent No. 1 to purchase the car. And lastly he contended that Managing Director, who is made accused and who is petitioner No. 2 in this case could not, in any way, be prosecuted for misrepresentation, firstly for the aforesaid reasons and secondly petitioner No. 2 Jagdish Khattar was not the Managing Direc-tor at the time of selling of the car. 7. Mr. Vakil, the Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, also pointed out that though in his com-plaint Respondent No. 1 has stated that he was induced to purchase the car on the basis of news paper advertise-ment, no such news paper advertise-ment was placed on record by res-pondent No. 1 before the trial Court. 8. 7. Mr. Vakil, the Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, also pointed out that though in his com-plaint Respondent No. 1 has stated that he was induced to purchase the car on the basis of news paper advertise-ment, no such news paper advertise-ment was placed on record by res-pondent No. 1 before the trial Court. 8. As against this, it was con-tended by respondent No. 1 that as like every car the manufacturer Maruti Udyog Ltd. has also been spending crores of rupees on advertisement only for inducing the customers to purchase their cars, and therefore, not filing copy of the advertisement cannot be said to be fatal. He contended that there was no merit and substance in the arguments of Mr. Vakil that the petitioners manufacturer could not be said to have any concern with the car after it was sold by them to the dealer and, according to him, the manu-facturer is still liable for manu-facturing defects. So far as resale of car by the dealer is concerned, he contended that the word “Resale” was used in the agreement between the petitioners and the dealer accused No. 2 only for the purpose of avoiding the sales-tax. As to whether Petitioner No. 2 was the Managing Director or not, the respondent No. 1 contended that this issue has only to be decided at the time of trial and not in the writ petition. Respondent No. 1 also pointed out that the dealer has challenged the issuance of process before the Sessions Judge, Pune and his challenge was turned down by the Sessions Judge by reasoned order. Lastly he contended that the petitioners had directly come to this Court without going to the Magistrate and in these circumstances, the petition was liable to be dismissed. 9. It is necessary to point out here that no case-law was cited by the petitioners though respondent No. 1 has cited number of case-laws. 10. The agreement between the petitioners manufacturer and the dealer has been filed along with this petition on record page Exhibit-C. It is dated 1-6-1996. There is clause of “Maximum Selling Price” fixed from time to time by the company to be charged on “resale” of its products [Stress added]. 10. The agreement between the petitioners manufacturer and the dealer has been filed along with this petition on record page Exhibit-C. It is dated 1-6-1996. There is clause of “Maximum Selling Price” fixed from time to time by the company to be charged on “resale” of its products [Stress added]. In clause No. 5 about limits of Authority, it is provided that, the dealer was not to be the authorised agent or representative of the company for any purpose and, the dealer has no right or authority to bind the company by any contract or representation whatsoever with or to any third party. So far as company’s liability is concerned, Clause 19 provides that after despatch of the products from the company, the company’s liability in respect of any defect in the products will be limited to the company’s obligations under the Warranty clause. The company will have no other liability and all risks will be on Dealer’s account. In Clause 20 it is provided that title to any pro-ducts shall only pass to the dealer on full payment of the purchase price or on delivery whichever is later. It is on the basis of these clauses and other clauses, Mr. Vakil also contended that petitioner No. 1 has sold the car to the dealer accused No. 3 and after the sale, the petitioner is not concerned with the defects in the car. 11. It is difficult to accept any of these submissions. There are numerous reasons for that. The most important reasons is that, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioners had brought this agree-ment, between the petitioners and accused No. 3 the dealer, to the notice of respondent No. 1 when he purcha-sed the car. Nothing is pointed out that all the purchasers of maruti cars from the dealer were made aware of such agreement between the peti-tioners and dealer. Secondly, this is an agreement between the petitioners and the dealer and it is not binding upon the purchaser because he is not partly to the agreement. 12. Thirdly, even if the word “resale” is used in the said agreement and that the title passes to the dealer, there is nothing in the agreement to show that the petitioner is absolved of his liability regarding manufacturing defects. In any case, it cannot be said that dealer can be responsible even for manufacturing defects. 12. Thirdly, even if the word “resale” is used in the said agreement and that the title passes to the dealer, there is nothing in the agreement to show that the petitioner is absolved of his liability regarding manufacturing defects. In any case, it cannot be said that dealer can be responsible even for manufacturing defects. No dealer would accept such terms and in clause 19 it is clearly mentioned that after despatch of the products from the company, the company’s liability in respect of any defect in the products will be limited to the company’s obli-gations under the Warranty clause. Therefore, it is clear that so far as manufacturing defect are concerned, the company is still directly responsi-ble and concerned with the products. The contention of Mr. Vakil is required to be rejected in this background. 13. Secondly, non-production of advertisement by respondent No. 1 is also of no consequence. Because of continuous bombarding of advertise-ment through media the customers are attracted and lured to purchase particular brand of car and non-production of any specific advertise-ment by respondent No. 1 is of no consequence at least at this stage of seeking discharge or recall of process. Thirdly, a new car had given serious trouble would have endangered life to the respondent and all occupants of the car and of the pedestrians and everybody on road at any time because accelerator is obviously the most important part of the machine of car. Therefore when after repairing the car on two occasions same defect is continued then it was necessary for the manufacturer to take appropriate steps. Same having not been taken and an attempt to avoid the responsi-bility being done, the respondent No. 1 was justified in filing the complaint. 14. The next, contention of Mr. Vakil was that petitioner No. 2 could not personally be held responsible because cars are being sold to the thousands of customers through out India and for every manufacturing defect the petitioner No. 1 cannot be held responsible. He contended that the petitioner has not made any misrepresentation about the car nor has inducted respondent No. 1. 15. When replying to the argu-ments given by respondent No. 1. He contended that the petitioner has not made any misrepresentation about the car nor has inducted respondent No. 1. 15. When replying to the argu-ments given by respondent No. 1. I specifically questioned the advocate for the petitioners as to who can be made an accused in case of complaint under Section 420 against the com-pany because obviously the company being the corporated body cannot be made an accused. The advocate for the respondent No. 1 had to admit that the man in charge of the aforesaid company can be made an accused. In view of this facts if is clear that if after manufacturing defect, a criminal complaint is filed against the com-pany i.e., Maruti Udyog Limited, then joining of petitioner No. 2 was perfectly justified. Whether petitioner No. 2 was the Managing Director at the time of sale or not is question of fact that has to be gone in the trial court at the time of final disposal of the case. It is pertinent to note that warranty is for one year and defect in the car was brought to the notice of the manufacturer and the dealer within the said period. The Agreement referred to above between the petiti-oners and the dealer also speaks of manufacturing liability regarding manufacturing defect. It is a fact that till the date of filing of complaint no steps were taken by the manufacturer to remove the defects. There is also no force in the contention of the petitioners that the car was not sold with the knowledge of defect. So far as findings of the Sessions Judge  in revision filed by the dealer are concerned, they need not be taken into consideration because I have specifically dealt with the sub-missions made Mr. Vakil. 16. In view of this; the petition is dismissed. The trial Court to proceed with the trial. It is clarified that the observations made by this court will not influence by the trial Court in any way while deciding the complaint. If peti-tioner No. 2 applies for exemption, then looking to the facts and circumstances, of the case and the fact that petitioner No. 2 is from Delhi and it will be diffi-cult for him to attend the case on every day, the trial court may pass appro-priate orders for exemption. Counsel for the petitioners prays for stay. If peti-tioner No. 2 applies for exemption, then looking to the facts and circumstances, of the case and the fact that petitioner No. 2 is from Delhi and it will be diffi-cult for him to attend the case on every day, the trial court may pass appro-priate orders for exemption. Counsel for the petitioners prays for stay. Prayer for stay is rejected because no stay was granted at the time of admission and also for the reasons for which the petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.