RAJ RANI DHANDA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-M/s Raj Rani Dhanda has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking directions on respondents No. 1 to 3 i.e. Respondent No.1-Commissioner of Police, Delhi, Respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner of Police, South District, Houz Khas, New Delhi and Respondent No.3-S.H.O. Police Station Sarita Vihar to register a case of cheating against respondents No. 4 to 8 and after registration of the case to carry out the investigation in the matter.

(2.) The petition has been filed with the averments and allegations that on 13.7.2003 the petitioner had booked a Skoda Octavia Elegance Car Sea Blue Colour with Continental Auto Services, A-13, Mohan Coop. Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, Opp. Sarita Vihar, New Delhi and deposited a draft for Rs.3,77,000/- and the Company promised to effect the delivery of the car on 18.7.2003. Respondent No.4-Sh.J.S. Bhasin and Respondent No.6-Sh. Neeraj Karoul are stated to be the owner of the said Continental Auto Services while Respondent No.4-Sh.Monto Bhasin and Respondent No.7-Mr.Sumit are stated to be the employed as Sales Manager and Employee of the said Continental Auto Services. On 18.7.2003, the petitioner along with her husband and son, both practicing Advocates in Delhi Courts, went to Continental Auto Services in order to take the delivery of the car. The petitioner was given the delivery of a Skoda Octavia Car (Deep Sea Blue Elegance Petrol Car) bearing Chassis No.TMBBEJIU02A077464 and Engine No.AEG634494 without carrying out PDI (Pre-delivery inspection) but the sale invoice given to her was of an altogether different car of Cayenne Orange Colour with Chassis No.TMBBEJIU92/A007561 and Engine No. AEG634490. After taking the delivery of the car when the son of the petitioner was driving the car on 19.7.2003 he noticed that the car started missing and there were many other defects and so he contacted the respondent-company and on their instructions, he took the car to their showroom and complained to Respondent No.4-Mr.J.S Bhasin about the delivery of defective car. With great reluctance, the car was exchanged with another car even which according to the petitioner was not in perfect order and was not functioning to her satisfaction. It is also alleged that when the petitioner and her son pointed out the above discrepancy in the Sales Voucher and the actually delivered car. Respondent No.7-Mr. Sumit at the behest of respondent No.4-Mr. J. S. Bhasin, snatched away the invoice from the hands of the petitioner and tore it away. According to the petitioner, the respondent had the bad intention to cheat the petitioner from the very beginning inasmuch as the defective car was delivered with a Sales Voucher containing Chassis and engine number of an altogether different car. The petitioner made a complaint to SHO, Police Station, Sarita Vihar, on 24.7.2003 praying for taking action against the said dealer and their functionaries but without any success, hence this petition.

(3.) The matter came up for hearing in the first instance before the Division Bench of this Court on 8.9.2003 and the Division Bench issued notice to respondents and called upon them to file reply/status report in the matter.