VIJAY GHIDIA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed praying to quash the order dated 19.5.2009 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich in Case No.2288/12/2007 (Viresh Chandra Srivastava vs. Mahindra Finance Company) by means of which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after rejecting the final report had taken cognizance and issued summons against the petitioner herein.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is one of the Director of a Private Limited Company namely Ghidia Agro Private Limited. The said Company is the authorised dealer of Bajaj Motorcycle. The said Company also deals in Swaraj Tractors, as well as its sales, service and spare parts. It appears that the complainant-respondent no. 2 approached the petitioner's Company to purchase a motor bike (Discover K-70). The total cost of the vehicle including accessories was Rs.42,880/-. It is averred in the petition that Respondent No. 2 wanted to get loan from M/s. Mahindra Finance Company Limited (in short ''Company') to purchase the vehicle and therefore, he requested the petitioner's Company to provide him copy of invoice. It is further averred that it was normal for the petitioner-Company to give invoice without actual delivery of the vehicle for the purposes of finance and hypothecation. Invoice would have Chasis No., Engine No. Price etc., of the proposed vehicle to be financed, chosen by the prospective purchaser and after the Finance Company would issue cheque/draft for the value for the vehicle in favour of the petitioner's Company, the vehicle was to be delivered to the buyer. It is also averred that some financial institutions asked for quotation for giving finance whereas private financial institutions such as HDFC and ICICI asked for bills of the vehicle to be financed.

(3.) The complainant-respondent no. 2 had deposited Rs.11338/- as margin money along with service charges etc., with the Financer, Mahindra Finance on 11.12.2006. M/s. Mahindra Finance informed the petitioner's Company that the complainant's application to get the loan for purchase the afore-mentioned motorcycle had been rejected and Mahindra Finance would not make payment of the vehicle to the petitioner's Company. It has further been averred that after Mahindra Finance rejected the application of the complainant for finance, the applicant came to the petitioner's Company on 11.12.2006 and asked for delivery of the said vehicle. However, since the payment was not received by the petitioner's Company, the vehicle could not have been delivered.