ANAND MAHINDRA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed for quashing the first information report filed against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, both read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, in consequence of which Crime No. I-60/97 is registered at Cidco Police Station at Aurangabad.

(2.) THE present respondent no. 2 filed report at the Police Station, that he had placed an order for tractor manufactured by Mahindra & Mahindra Company, with Dealer, Nath Automobiles, Aurangabad. He had obtained loan from Janata Sahakari Bank for the purchase of tractor. He placed an order for the tractor of the make, 265-D-I. THE price of the said tractor as quoted by the dealer was Rs. 1,94,742/ -. He, therefore, obtained demand draft in the name of Mahindra & Mahindra Company towards the price of the tractor and the demand draft was handed over to the dealer. THE dealer, in his turn, sent the demand draft to the manufacturer, Mahindra & Mahindra Company. THE demand draft was dated 4-6-1996. THEreafter, repeatedly he made enquiries with the dealer and the officers of the manufacturing company, for the delivery of the tractor. But he did not receive delivery of the tractor. Neither the dealer nor the officers of the company gave him proper help in this respect. Even through his Bank, he had written letter to the manufacturer for the delivery of the tractor, but in vain. On 17-12-1996, Ramnivas Bhandari, Proprietor of Nath Automobiles, issued a cheque for the amount of demand draft in favour of the complainant. He submitted that cheque through the bank on 30-12-1996. But it was not honoured. THE complainant, therefore, has contended that the dealer, Ramnivas Bhandari; Anand Mahindra, one of the Directors of Mahindra & Mahindra Company; and Mr. Ravi Mathur, Regional Manager of Pune Office, in furtherance of their common intention, deceived the complainant, obtained draft of Rs. 1,94,742/-, but did not deliver the tractor and then a cheque was issued which was dishonoured. On the basis of this F. I. R. crime was registered for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, both read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

(3.) IF any cheque was issued by the dealer in favour of the complainant, and if that cheque was not honoured, the manufacturer or the officers of the manufacturing company cannot be held responsible for these acts of the dealer. There is nothing on record indicating that the cheque was issued at the instance of the petitioners by the dealer when the dealer had not received the price of the tractor and the amount was credited in the account by the manufacturer, there was no question for dealer to issue any cheque and if he had issued any cheque to mislead the complainant, the present petitioners cannot be held responsible for that. So, for the dishonour of the cheque, the present petitioners cannot be prosecuted for offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. The F. I. R. and the papers of investigation, so far as the present petitioners are concerned, do not disclose any offence against the present petitioners. There was order for tractor of the make B-275-D-I, and non receiving the price for that, the tractor was sent to the dealer. So, for any further acts of the dealer, officers of the company cannot be held responsible.