Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1230 (PAT)

Maruti Udyog Limited v. State Of Bihar

2006-12-11

ABHIJIT SINHA

body2006
Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Rajendra Kumar Giri, the learned counsel for the petitioner-Company and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is directed against the order dated 21.8.2002 passed by Shri Arun Kumar Shrivastava, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 571(C) of 2001 whereby he was pleased to take cognizance against the accuse persons including the Company under Sections 406, 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that the opposite party no. 2 herein, M/s Ashok Leyland Finance Limited, who runs a business of financing the vehicles was in need of twenty Maruti vehicles to provide to his customers in the year 1998. It is further said that the accused no. 1, M/s Johal Tractors came to know about the requirement of the complainant- Company and approached the Company- complainant for supply of the desired vehicles and N.S. Chauhan (accused no. 3), Assistant Manager of Johal Tractors approached the complainant-Company at its Patna Office and induced the complainant-Company by informing that they were in a position to deliver more than 20 Maruti Vehicles within a period of one month and in case of delay they would pay monthly interest at the rate of 2%. It is further alleged that accused no. 3 assured the complainant that there will be no problem in dealing and accused no. 6, the Regional Manager, Maruti Udyog Limited, Calcutta also assured the complainant on behalf of Maruti Udyog Limited (the petitioner herein) that the assurances given by accused no. 3 were true and worthy of reliance. It is contended that the complainant believing the assurances aforesaid confirmed bulk purchase of minimum 10 Maruti Cars of 800CC and 10 Maruti Omni Vans and accordingly made payment of Rs. 37,30,000/-. It is said that after receiving the above payment the accused persons started to delay the supply of the vehicles on one pretext or the other. When there had been considerable delay, the complainant- Company became restless and requested for refund of his money whereupon the accused person delivered seven vehicles at the interval of several months. 37,30,000/-. It is said that after receiving the above payment the accused persons started to delay the supply of the vehicles on one pretext or the other. When there had been considerable delay, the complainant- Company became restless and requested for refund of his money whereupon the accused person delivered seven vehicles at the interval of several months. It is said that in October, 1999, the complainant- Company again requested for refund of the balance amount but the accused persons paid no heed although till December, 2000 the accused persons were required to refund to the complainant-Company a sum of Rs. 12.67 lacs approximately after making deductions for the vehicles already supplied to them. Sending of legal notice could not galvanize the accused persons into action. 4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the accused no. 5, Jagdish Khattar, the Managing Director, Maruti Udyog Limited and Sanjay Kumar Nigam, the Regional Manager (South-2), Maruti Udyog Limited had preferred Criminal Misc. No. 2283 of 2005 for quashing of the impugned order dated 21.8.2002 and a Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 3.11.2006 had quashed the proceedings as it was felt to be an abuse of the process of the Court on the findings that as per dealership agreement accused no. 1, M/s Johal Tractors was the dealer of Maruti Udyog Limited and that there had been no agreement between the complainant-Company and Maruti Udyog Ltd. and its officers or agents or representatives for supply of vehicles and that Maruti Udyog Limited would not be liable for any failure or delay in delivery of the vehicles since the bank drafts for booking of the vehicles were prepared in the name of M/s Johal Tractors. The learned counsel also sought to submit that the case of the petitioner herein, M/s Maruti Udyog Limited is similarly situated as that of the petitioners in Criminal Misc. No. 2283 of 2005 and he is entitled to similar benefit. 5. I have perused the order dated 3.11.2006 passed in Criminal Misc. No. 2283 of 2005 and I am in agreement with the same. 6. Accordingly, this application succeeds and the impugned order dated 21.8.2002 is hereby quashed.