P. Balajee, son of M. S. Paulranjan v. State of Jharkhand
2023-04-27
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
body2023
DigiLaw.ai
JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Bishwambhar Shastri, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent State. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing the F.I.R as well as entire criminal proceeding arising out of Lalpur P.S.Case No.215 of 2013 dated 19.08.2013, G.R.No.4598 of 2013, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. “The complaint case was filed by the O.P.No.2 alleging therein that the complaint intending to purchase mobile set visited the said website of the company through internet and after being convinced with the specifications of Nokia E6-00 model mobile handset and decided to purchase it. On 16.8.2012 the complainant purchased the said mobile handsest from M/s Cosmic on cash payment of Rs.17,660/- and thereafter from Kolkata the complaint purchased 32 GB MicroSD Card of Sandisk for Rs.1800/- and installed it in the said mobile handset and after being properly put into the said mobile handset it was not supported /read by the said handset. Thereafter the complainant went to Nokia Care Centre in Ranchi namely M/s Shreya Services and there he was said that the handset was not defective but since the said card was defective therefore it was not being read/supported by the handset. On 19.12.2012 complainant again spent Rs.349/- for purchase of silicon cover for the said handset. On being replacement of the said 32 GB micro SD card on 22.12.2012 and although testing of it, the complainant became sure that the said card was not defective/s Shreya Services the care centre at Ranchi gave a new white NOKIA E6-00 to the complainant in place of old NOKIA E6-00 and thereafter the new hand set did not support the said 32 GB card and thereafter M/s Shreya Services, care centre, again issued a new silver coloured NOKIA E6-00 handset and now the complainant also found that this handset also did not read/support the card. The complainant sent legal notice on 13.3.2013 to the second accused demanding Rs.1,00,000/- to be paid towards compensation and as such all the accused persons conspired together to cheat the complainant and the complaint was forwarded to the police for institution of FIR under section 156(3) Cr.P.C on 12.6.2013.” 3. Mr.
The complainant sent legal notice on 13.3.2013 to the second accused demanding Rs.1,00,000/- to be paid towards compensation and as such all the accused persons conspired together to cheat the complainant and the complaint was forwarded to the police for institution of FIR under section 156(3) Cr.P.C on 12.6.2013.” 3. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the first accused person is a private limited Indian company that manufacturers and sells several models of mobile phone handsets in various cities of India under the brand name of NOKIA. The second accused person is the managing director of the first accused company. He submits that the complainant had purchased NOKIA E6-00 through local dealer. On purchase of the same on 16.8.2012 from authorized show room of the said company –accused no.4 in the complaint petition on payment of Rs.17,616/- the complainant on his own purchased 32GB card at Kolkata as aforesaid and the said card was not read by the said mobile handset. The complainant visited NOKIA care centre at Ranchi and it was pointed out that the same was defective and on these background the FIR was registered. However, the company has further replaced the mobile handset in favour of the complainant. He submits that on these background the FIR has been registered and till date, according to the status report, charge sheet has not been submitted and as such, the criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law. 4. Ms. Sonal Sodhani, the learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 submits that there is allegation of cheating and that is why the case has been lodged and investigation is still going on and at this stage, this Court may not interfere with the matter. 5. Mr. Shastri, the learned State counsel submits that the charge sheet has not been submitted as yet. 6. In view of the above submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the contents of the FIR and finds that admittedly for not working of the said mobile handset the present case has been filed.
5. Mr. Shastri, the learned State counsel submits that the charge sheet has not been submitted as yet. 6. In view of the above submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the contents of the FIR and finds that admittedly for not working of the said mobile handset the present case has been filed. In paragraph no.8 of the complaint petition, it has been stated that the complainant went to the nearest Nokia care centre in Ranchi namely M/s Shreya Services the third accused person whose technicians there examined the handset and told the complainant that said handset was not defective but since 32 GBmicroSC card of Sandisk company was defective, it was not being read/supported by said handset. In paragraph no.12 and 13 the complainant itself admitted that the mobile handset was replaced twice which clearly suggest that there is no intention of cheating from very beginning and in the case in hand the company has already replaced the mobile handset twice inspite of the fact that there was no defect in the mobile set. Further it is well known that if any article is being sold, there are parameters of guarantee/warrantee and if there is any deficiency in service, for that remedy is to move before the appropriate District Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and not to file a criminal case. The Court finds that in these background to allow to continue the proceeding further will amount to abuse of the process of law. 7. Accordingly, entire criminal proceeding including the F.I.R arising out of Lalpur P.S.Case No.215 of 2013 dated 19.08.2013, G.R.No.4598 of 2013, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi is quashed. 8. Cr.M.P. No.3031 of 2013 stands allowed and disposed of. 9. Pending petition if any also stands disposed of.