MAHESHBHAI GANESHBHAI VEKARIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 {"CrPC" for brevity} to quash and set aside complaint, being C. R. No. I-179/2012 registered with Thorala Police Station, District: Rajkot for an offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code ["IPC" for short].

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the applicant had purchased a vehicle, being Hyundai Verna Car from the respondent no.2-Company, through a broker. The price of the said vehicle was quoted at Rs. 10,85,615/- and as per the policy of the company, if any customer wants to purchase a car then he has to come personally or through broker and provide relevant documents and make signatures. In this connection, the applicant approached the accused no.3 who being a car broker, and therefore, he had come with brother of the accused no.1 and stated that he intends to purchase a car on behalf of the accused no.1. At that time, the accused no.3 provided details regarding the car on the name of the accused no.1 and while asking the complainant to accused no.3 that as to how you will make payment of car then accused no. 3 stated that the purchaser will make payment through RTGS and cash. Thereafter, company received payment of Rs. 7,62,000/- on 01.08.2012 from the accused no.2 and at that time, the company asked him that the car is booked on the name of accused no.1 then as to why the RTGS has been made on the name of Bharatbhai Manjibhai and at that time, it was informed that accused no.1 and 2 are the friends the car delivery payment can be considered on the name of the accused no.1 whether the payment will be come on the name of anyone. Thereafter, on 11.08.2012, the accused no.1 informed the company that the amount of Rs. 7,62,000/- has been sent through RTGS on the name of Bharatbhai and remaining amount has been paid through cheque and therefore, the complainant received the remaining amount through cheque and accepting the required documents, the delivery of car was given to the accused no.1. Thereafter, on 13.09.2012, learned advocate for the accused no.2 sent notice under the Consumer Protection Act alleging the fact that the company received the amount from the accused no.2 etc., and therefore, the company made contact to Bharatbhai but at that time, he told that the company had received amount through RTGS from him and therefore, Bharatbhai is considered to be consumer and thus, car should be given to him. Thus, there is allegation to the effect amount of Rs. 7,62,000/-was paid through RTGS by some other person on behalf of the applicant [accused no.1] and subsequently, the said person has also asked the car from the respondent no.2-Company and on account of such transaction, the impugned complainant has been lodged.

(3.) Heard learned advocate Mr. Virat G Popat for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr. Ashish M. Dagli for the respondent no.2 and learned APP Mr. Rutvij Oza for the respondent no.1-State.