ORDER 1. This application under section 482 CrPC is filed for quashment of criminal complaint bearing No.131/2010 under section 420 of IPC pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shujalpur, District Shajapur. 2. According to the facts giving rise to this application, on 4.10.2006, the complainant who is respondent No.1 before this Court submitted an application before Sehore Office of Mahindra Financial Services Limited, whose Branch Managers were the respondent No.2 and the applicant. A 25 seater bus was provided to the complainant after sanctioning a loan of Rs.7,35,000/- and the bus was delivered to him at his resident situated at village Harda, Tahsil Kalapipal, District Shajapur. On 11.5.2007, the vehicle developed some snag and mechanic was called from Sehore who advised that the vehicle should be shifted to workshop situated at Bhopal. The vehicle was taken to Bhopal where it was informed by the workers working there that the bus is not 32 seater but 25 seater and, therefore, realizing that he was cheated by the respondent No.2 and the present applicant. He filed a criminal complaint before the Judicial Magistrate. 3. Prior to filing the criminal complaint, he also approached District Consumer Forum where he suffered an adverse order. 4. Even after notice to respondents No.1 and 2, they remain absent before the Court. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no ingredients of section 420 IPC. The facts that whether the vehicle is 25 seater or 32 seater can be verified by planely counting the sitting capacity. From the very beginning, in all the papers of the vehicle, sitting capacity was stated to be 24+1. He further submits that under section 420 IPC, there should be an intention to cheat from the very inception which is not present in this case. 6. He also submits that vehicle was issued to him in the year 2006 while this application was filed in the year 2010. The offence was not a continuing offence and, therefore, also hit by provisions under section 468 CrPC. 7. I have gone through the copy of the complaint and also the order passed by the learned Magistrate thereon. From the registration papers of the vehicle, it is apparent that the vehicle was 25 seater. There are two kinds of defect in a goods supplied by a manufacturer. One is apparent defect and other is latent defect. 7. I have gone through the copy of the complaint and also the order passed by the learned Magistrate thereon. From the registration papers of the vehicle, it is apparent that the vehicle was 25 seater. There are two kinds of defect in a goods supplied by a manufacturer. One is apparent defect and other is latent defect. In case of latent defect, it may be difficult that by ordinary means such defect would be detected but when the defect is an apparent defect, such defect can be detected immediately on seeing the goods for the very first time. In the present case the alleged defect was apparent one because whether the vehicle was 25 seater or 32 seater can be determined merely by the counting seats in the vehicle, it cannot be accepted that the complainant who was a bus operator himself, though may be illiterate, could not determine whether the vehicle was 25 seater or 32 seater. No application on his part is filed in the record to show that in fact he earlier applied for a loan for 32 seater bus. The bus was accepted by him and he plied the bus till it developed some snag on 11.5.2007 and, therefore, so far as the material available on record, it cannot be assumed that the present applicant had an intention to deceit from the very inception. For assuming this, no material is available on record. In this view of the matter, the present application deserves to be allowed and accordingly allowed. The proceeding in complaint case pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shujalpur, District Shajapur in Criminal Case No.131/2010, so far as, relates to the applicant are quashed. He is discharged from the offence under section 420 IPC. 8. With this observation, this application stands disposed of.