REGENT AUTOMOBILES LTD Vs. SACHIN BHASKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners assailing order dated 30th September, 2008 summoning the petitioners for offences under Sections 418/420/463/468 read with Section 120-B IPC. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate in its order observed that prima facie a case under above offences was made out against the accused persons.

(2.) The brief facts relevant for deciding this petition are that the complainant booked an OPEL CORSA 1.4 GLS CASSABLANCA car with petitioners and made a payment of Rs.6,45,478/- vide cheque dated 7th September, 2000 in favour of M/s. Regent Automobiles Limited (petitioner No.1 herein) for purchase of the car. Delivery of the car was to be made within fortnight. On 30th September, 2000, he was told on telephone to take delivery of the car. On 1st October, 2000, he along with his friend went to showroom and found that the car was defective. There were scratches over the body of the car and there were other defects as mentioned in the complaint. It is alleged that these defects were brought to the notice of Colonel S.S. Malik and Sh. Neeraj Gupta and the complainant refused to take delivery of the car. He was assured that the matter would be taken up with higher authorities. He again visited showroom of M/s. Regent Automobiles Limited and learnt that the car has already been registered in his name and Colonel S.S. Malik and Sh. Neeraj Gupta told him that this was the only car which they could offer him and they could not offer any other car. The complainant approached State Consumer Forum against the petitioners in the year 2001 vide Complaint Case No.C-375 of 2001 claiming compensation on account of deficiency in service and delivery of defective car. The complainant filed a criminal complaint before learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 23rd July, 2007. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide impugned order summoned the petitioners to face trial under Sections 418/420/463/468 IPC.

(3.) A perusal of order of learned Metropolitan Magistrate shows that while taking cognizance of the offence he did not look into Chapter XXXVI of Criminal Procedure Code which provides the period of limitation within which cognizance of an offence can be taken nor analyzed the nature of offence. Section 468 Cr.P.C. bars taking of cognizance of any offence if the period of limitation as stated therein had expired. The period of limitation, for offence punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years, is three years. Section 469 provides the commencement of period of limitation, that the date of commencement of limitation will be from the date of commission of offence and in case, commission of offence was not known to aggrieved person, the commencement of limitation will be from the date when the offence came to its knowledge.