UJJAWAL SAMPATH CHORDIA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the 3rd accused in Crime No.317 of 2014 for offence under Sections 406, 420 r/w 120-B of IPC has filed this quash petition.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the 2nd respondent lodged a complaint against the petitioner/A3 and two others. The 2nd accused is the son of the petitioner/A3. Both of them are the Directors of M/s.Automobilia Italia Private Limited at Mumbai and M/s.Fiorano Motors Private Limited at Delhi and are dealers of Maserati Quattraporte Car and the 1st accused was working as Branch Manager of M/s.Fiorano Motors Limited at Delhi. During March 2004, the 2nd respondent had called M/s.Fiorano Motors Limited, Delhi at Janpath and enquired about the availability of new Maserati Quattraporte Car for MRF Limited/2nd respondent. The 1st accused claiming to be a Branch Manager of M/s.Fiorano Motors Private Limited, Delhi and an authorized dealer of Maserati Quattraporte Car sent an e-mail on 20.03.2014 attaching three photographs of three new Maserati Quattraporte Cars and three proforma invoices to the 2nd respondent. Further, the 1st accused said that he will come to Chennai to discuss about the final price, delivery schedule of the cars and to ensure prompt delivery, further, claimed that he has rich experience of importing luxury cars into India and have a good rapport with Maserati Quattraporte Car.

(3.) The 2nd accused and the petitioner/A3 have instructed him to visit the 2nd respondent to discuss the price and delivery of Maserati Quatraporte Car. The deal for Quotraporte 4.7 Automatic Car was discussed and finalised the price of Rs.1,98,50,592/-. Further, the accused have claimed that the imports have been done through Automobilia Italia Private Limited, a group company of the above partners (A2 and A3) and also authorized importers of Maserati Quatraporte Car. Further, the 1st accused handed over a brochure of the vehicle represented that three new cars have been imported and are available at the customs bonded warehouse in Mumbai, if 100% payment is made in advance he will deliver the vehicle within 25 working days. He requested the payment to be made to the Deutshe Bank AG, RTGS/IFS, Mumbai to the account of M/s.Fiorano Motors LLP. Based on the assurance, the 2nd respondent made full payment of Rs.1,98,50,592/- on 27.03.2014 through RTGS. Thereafter, the car was not delivered as promised within 25 working days, phone calls were made regularly to the 1st accused for delivery of the car, the accused was giving one reason or other. Later, the 1st accused stated that the car has been moved to the warehouse and proposed to deliver within a week time. Then too, the care was not delivered and there were several exchanges of letter and e-mails.