Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 711 (MP)

ANAND MAHINDRA v. SAUDAN SINGH

2006-05-16

A.K.GOHIL

body2006
( 1 ) THIS order shall govern the disposal of both the aforesaid M. Cr. Cs. ( 2 ) PETITIONER Anand Mahindra, Managing Director of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. and M/s. Bhopal Motors Ltd. , Bhopal have filed both the aforesaid petitions under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings against the petitioners as well as the order dated 6/3/1998 passed in Criminal Case No. 586/98 and also for quashing the order dated 18/5/2001 passed by Sessions Judge, Vidisha in civil Revision No. 45/2001. ( 3 ) THE brief facts of the case are that the complainant Saudan Singh has filed a private complaint against both the petitioners that he purchased a commander jeep from bhopal Motors, Bhopal on 18/9/1997. Mahindra and Mahindra Company is the manufacturer of the Commander Jeep and bhopal Motors, Bhopal is the dealer of the petitioner Company and there is no dispute about the aforesaid facts. It has also been mentioned in the complaint that the complainant along with his two friends Sahid parwej and Ku. Sanju Raghuvanshi had applied for loan of Rs. one lac each under unemployment scheme and after purchase of the aforesaid vehicle they were intending to run it and earn money for their livelihood. The loan was sanctioned and the bank draft for Rs. 3,02,610/- was prepared in the name of Bhopal Motors and the amount was forwarded to the dealer by a covering letter by the bank and thereafter the delivery of the jeep was given on 1-9-1997. The jeep was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company of Branch Vidisha and vehicle was also registered with RTO Vidisha. The trial of the jeep was taken on 19-9-1997. Soon after the delivery of the jeep by Bhopal Motors complainant found the leakage of oil from its engine and some defects were also pointed out in the gear box and clutch plate and he took the vehicle to Bhopal for repairs. However, despite the repair the defect could not be rectified and again on 24-9-1997 the jeep was left with the Bhopal Motors Ltd. for repairs, which remained with the Bhopal motors up to 26-9-1997. The complaint of the complainant was that during this period bhopal Motors changed the engine and fitted an old engine in its place and embossed thereon the engine number and did not intimate it to RTO. The complaint of the complainant was that during this period bhopal Motors changed the engine and fitted an old engine in its place and embossed thereon the engine number and did not intimate it to RTO. The complainant/respondent No. 1 further alleged that engine was changed in conspirarcy with sanghi Brothers, Indore and mahindra and Mahindra Company, Mumbai. The complaint was initially registered under Sections 420, 406 read with section 120-B, IPC vide order dt. 6-3-1998 by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, vidisha and thereafter process was issued. M/s. Sanghi Brothers appeared before the court of A. C. J. M. Vidisha and submitted an application for discharge and A. C. J. M. , vidisha dropped the proceedings against the sanghi Brothers and exonerated in the case and now the case is pending against both the petitioners. Both the petitioners also filed revision before the Sessions Judge, Vidisha against the order of issuing process, but the learned Sessions Judge vide order dt. 18-5-2001 dismissed the aforesaid revision, against which both the petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. ( 4 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence on record. The sole contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Court of A. C. J. M. , Vidisha is not having any jurisdiction to try the complaint as no part of crime or part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of A. C. J. M. , Vidisha and on that ground prayed for quashment of the proceedings. ( 5 ) IN reply Shri R. K. Sharma and Shri anil Mishra, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that offence is partly committed within the jurisdiction of a. C. J. M. , Vidisha and the act contained is also a criminal act of cheating and forgery, which is a punishable offence and both the petitions under Section 482, Cr. P. C. are not maintainable as the petitioners in both the petitions have already availed the remedy of revision, which has also been dismissed and the matter is covered by the findings recorded by the Courts below. Learned counsel for the complainant also submitted that these petitions under Section 482, Cr. P. C. are not maintainable. P. C. are not maintainable as the petitioners in both the petitions have already availed the remedy of revision, which has also been dismissed and the matter is covered by the findings recorded by the Courts below. Learned counsel for the complainant also submitted that these petitions under Section 482, Cr. P. C. are not maintainable. ( 6 ) AS argued by the counsel for the petitioners , the sole question in this petition remains for consideration is whether the offence has been committed wholly or partly in the local area of the jurisdiction of a. C. J. M. , Vidisha or not ? ( 7 ) CHAPTER XIII of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 provides for the jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts in inquiries and trials. Section 177 provides that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. Section 178 clearly provides the place of inquiry or trial. Section 178, Cr. P. C. read as under :-"section 178. (a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or (b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or (c) where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, or (d) where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. "from the plain reading of aforesaid provisions of Section 178 it is clear that where the offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another and where offence is continuing one and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, or whether an offence consists of several acts done in different local areas, it would be enquired into and tried by the Court over jurisdiction of any of such local area. This section clearly lays down that in any of the above four cases the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. From the bare reading of the complaint it is also clear that in the complaint, complainant has clearly mentioned that he obtained loan under unemployment scheme under OBC Bank, vidisha. The loan was sanctioned and the bank draft for Rs. From the bare reading of the complaint it is also clear that in the complaint, complainant has clearly mentioned that he obtained loan under unemployment scheme under OBC Bank, vidisha. The loan was sanctioned and the bank draft for Rs. 3,02,610/- was prepared in Vidisha in the name of Bhopal Motors and the amount was forwarded to the Dealer and it was dispatched from Vidisha and the amount of payment was also collected by the dealer from Vidisha through clearing house. The vehicle was bought at Vidisha and the defect was also noticed at Vidisha. It has also been mentioned in the complaint that the vehicle was insured at Vidisha and was also registered at RTO, Vidisha. It is also the case of the respondent/complainant that they wanted to do some business with the aforesaid vehicle to earn their livelihood. From the aforesaid facts it is clear that offence is partly committed in one local area of Vidisha, which comes within the jurisdiction of the A. C. J. M. , Vidisha. Though it was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the complainant has also filed one complaint before the District Consumer Forum and has also obtained the award, agaist which appeal is pending and during the course of the arguments, it was also pointed out that the petitioners have not paid the amount to the complainant as per the award passed by the district Consumer forum. But admittedly the application filed before the District Consumer forum has nothing to do with the criminal proceedings. For the manufacturing defects in the vehicle the manufacturer as well as its dealer are liable. Sofar as the defective engine is concerned, this fact alone may be sufficient for constituting any offence under Section 420 read with Sections 167, 120-B and 379, IPC, but if the defective vehicle sold defectively and fradulently, manufacturing defect on pointing out not cured and during the process of repairing if the engine is changed and an old engine is fitted in place of new engine fraudulently and dishonestly under criminal conspiracy with a view to deceive and also embossed the number of the original engine on the old engine and intentionally induced the complainant to believe that the new engine has been fitted, such kind of act prima facie will certainly fall within the purview of cheating with forgery and criminal conspiracy and will be a punishable offence. Therefore, prima facie it appears that trial Court has rightly taken cognizance in the matter and has rightly issued the process after considering the mateiral produced and facts mentioned in the complaint. From the perusal of the complaint, prima facie it appears that the part of the offence is also committed within the jurisdiction of the A. C. J. M. , Vidisha. Therefore, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners have no force and the complaint cannot be quashed on any of the ground submitted and argued on behalf of the petitioners. ( 8 ) SOFAR as the objection of the respondent about the maintainability of these petitions under Section 482, Cr. P. C. is concerned, it is true that there is no provision under Cr. P. C. for filing second revision by the same party in the High Court. High Court can entertain petition under Section 482, cr. P. C. and can exercise extra ordinary jurisdiction to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court for securing the ends of justice. It is also true that petition under section 482, Cr. P. C. cannot be filed under the garb of second revision. It is also true that inherent powers should be exercised sparingly and only in cases where High court comes to the firm conclusion that there is abuse of the process of the Court. In this case looking to the allegations in the complaint and material produced before the trial Court it appears that the trial Court has rightly issued the process against the petitioners and the first revisional Court has also rightly dismissed the revision. The court has taken the cognizance after considering the material on record and in such circumstances it cannot be said that while issuing process Court has abused the process of Court or there is any ground for quashing the complaint. Where the prima facie case for alleged offence is made out, it would not be proper for this Court to consider the question of taking cognizance by the Court. It is not in dispute before me that the question of jurisdiction of A. C. J. M. was not taken either before the trial Court or before the revisional Court. Where the prima facie case for alleged offence is made out, it would not be proper for this Court to consider the question of taking cognizance by the Court. It is not in dispute before me that the question of jurisdiction of A. C. J. M. was not taken either before the trial Court or before the revisional Court. ( 9 ) THUS, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case I do not find that any case is made out for interference in the petition filed by the peititioner under Section 482, Cr. P. C. Accordingly, both the petitions are dismissed. Parties shall appear before the trial Court on 24th July, 2006 and thereafter Court shall proceed with the case. Petitions dismissed. .