DILIP CHHABRIA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No. 0375 dated 12.09.2017 registered at Police Station- Telibandha, District- Raipur (C.G.) on the basis of a complaint made by respondent No. 2- Prahalad Agrawal against them for offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 & 34 of I.P.C.

(2.) The brief facts as projected by the petitioners are that petitioner No. 1- Dilip Chhabaria is a car designer and Manging Director of Dilip Chhabaria Design Private Limited (commonly known as 'DC Design') (for short "the Company"), a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Petitioner No. 2- Kanchan Chhabaria is Chief Executive Officer and petitioner No. 3 is Director of the Company. The respondent No. 2, who is a director of Vandana Industries and resident of VIP road, Raipur, approached DC Design Pvt. Ltd., Pune Branch in the year 2007-08 to modify a car into a limousine, which was duly done to his satisfaction. The respondent No. 2 again approached the Company to modify a car namely Honda City with registration No. CG 04 CT 7777, Engine No. L-15A71228612 and Chasis No. MAKGM253J-AN113713 into a Bugatti Veyron look alike. Since, Honda City cannot be suitable for modification, therefore, representative of the Company suggested respondent No. 2 that the Honda City could not be modified as a Bugatti look as per the specifications desired as the dimensions of manual Honda City car was not suitable for the modification of automatic drive car and in turn, respondent No. 2 accepted the same and Honda City would be replaced by Honda Civic bearing registration No. MH 43 R 1139, Engine No. R1811969890 and Chasis No. MAKFD162L6N002962 as per requirement and satisfaction of respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 accepted the same and requested representative of the Company to do the needful. The said Honda Civic car was delivered to respondent No. 2 and he accepted the same without any objection and in the year 2013, he sent the said vehicle for servicing and repairs due to a noise in the wheels of the modified vehicle, which was duly rectified by the petitioners and respondent No. 2 accepts the same after repairing. After three years in the year 2015, respondent No. 2 contacted the Company to resale the vehicle, since the vehicle was three years old, therefore, respondent No. 2 requested to purchase the vehicle or to resale the same at the best available resale price as he was going through financial crises. Representative of the Company informed respondent No. 2 that the car could not be returned or resold for more than 50 lacs after using the same for three years Therefore respondent No. 2 started using other mode for pressurizing the representative of the Company, by sending notice under Section 160 of the Cr.P.C. through Police Station (Annexure P/4) to the Managing Director and founder of the Company on 16/01/2010.

(3.) On request by respondent No. 2, it was agreed between respondent No. 2 and the company that final price Rs. 50 lacs will be paid by the Company to respondent No. 2, out of which, Rs. 45 lacs was paid in advance and remaining amount i.e. Rs. 5 lacs will be paid after resale of the said vehicle. This was only done as a onetime accommodation in view of keeping the relationship with respondent No. 2. In July, 2016, respondent No. 2 again sent a car namely Honda CRV for some repairing and modifications, which was duly completed to the satisfaction and approval of respondent No. 2 with delivery receipt and customer satisfaction note signed by respondent No. 2 for Honda CRV was also filed with petition.