ASHOK SACHDEV Vs. G S CHAUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petitions the Petitioners Ashok Sachdev and Praveen Sahni in CRL.M.C. 927/2011 and Shweta Khanna in CRL.M.C. 3691/2011 seek quashing of criminal complaint bearing No. 137/1/10 titled as G.S. Chauhan Vs. Ashok Sachdev & Ors." pending in the Court of Shri Rajinder Singh, Metropolitan Magistrate-04, Saket Courts, New Delhi and the order dated 14 th January, 2011 summoning the Petitioners for offence under Section 420 IPC.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Petitioners contend that at best the allegations in the complaint are of manufacturing defect, however by the order of summoning the manufacturer i.e. accused No.4 Ms. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Private Limited has been dropped and the Petitioners herein who were only dealers, G.M. (Sales) and sales representative respectively have been summoned. The vehicle i.e. Toyota Innova, multi-utility vehicle was purchased by the Respondent from the company on 23 rd May, 2007. However the first complaint was lodged in the month of May, 2008 i.e. after 12 months of the date of purchase of the vehicle. The complaint of the Respondent was that the bumpers and the fenders of the vehicle were dented, repaired and repainted. The Petitioners were not liable for any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The dispute is purely commercial in nature and no criminal liability can be fastened against the Petitioners. On a perusal of the complaint and the statement of the Respondent, no criminal offence under Section 420 IPC is made out against the Petitioners. The allegations in the complaint are contrary to the petition filed before the Consumer forum wherein it is alleged that the company sold an old car. Reliance in this regard is placed on B.Suresh Yadav Vs. Sharifa Bee & Anr., 2009 1 SCC(Cri) 282 to contend that if contrary pleas are taken in the criminal and civil proceedings, then the same assumes importance. Relying upon Ford India Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Sunbeam Ancilliary P. Ltd.,2008 152 DLT 50 it is contended that the dispute is entirely civil in nature and hence no criminal liability can be fastened.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Shweta Khanna in addition contends that the only role assigned to the Petitioner Shweta Khanna is that she informed that a red colour vehicle was available at the Moti Nagar showroom. There is no other allegation. Reliance is placed on M/s. Thermax Ltd. and Ors. Vs. K.M. Johny and Ors., 2012 CrLJ 438.