ABHAY FIRODIA Vs. DEVJI SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed for quashing the process issued by the Additional Chief Metropolitan magistrate, 24th Court at Borivali, Bombay for offence under section 420 read with section 34 and/or 114 of the Indian penal Code against the petitioner and another accused in case No. 40/s of 1991.

(2.) THE Respondent No. 1 had filed the complaint against the petitioner, original accused No. 9, who is the Managing director of Bajaj Tempo Limited and another accused by name raju Shah, since deceased, who was the Managing Director of Car Mart Private Ltd. , the dealers of the vehicle, having their office in Bombay. The said complaint was filed on 19th january, 1990 in the Additional Chief Metropolitan magistrate s 24th Court at Borivali, Bombay for alleged offence under section 420 read with section 34 and/or 114 of indian Penal Code. The main allegations made in the complaint are that the complainant was doing business in partnership in the name of M/s. Perfect Metal Anodising and pressing Works. The petitioner-company was manufacturing matador-Tempo vehicles and TRAX Jeep. Sometime in August 1988 the employee of the original accused No. 1, i. e. the dealer, had visited the complainant and gave a printed brochure to the complainant about vehicle called as Tempo-Trax. The accused No. 1 informed the complainant that the said vehicle was free from all defects and gave average of 17 k. m. per litre of fuel. The accused No. 1 had given an warranty that if there was any complaint then the purchase amount will be refunded. The complainant then agreed to purchase the Tempo Trax being No. BLN 6102 for the invoice of Rs. 1,29,394/- prepared by accused No. 1. The complainant booked for the vehicle on 10th March 1989 and paid a sum of rs. 1,27,000/- against the receipt dated 10th March, 1989.

(3.) AFTER the purchase of the vehicle, the complainant did not find the vehicle as per the assurances given by accused No. 1 the dealer. It is the allegation in the complaint that although the dealer had assured that the vehicle would give average of 17 k. m. per litre of fuel, the vehicle was giving average of only 10. 5 k. m. per litre of fuel. There was frequent brake failure and, therefore, he wanted the accused to take back the vehicle and return his money. When the complainant proceeded on 15th August 1989 to go to Lonavala with his family members, the brake of the vehicle suddenly failed. Thereafter, the brake started working automatically. The brake had again failed in the last week of August 1989 and therefore the vehicle was sent to the workshop of accused. It is alleged that the dealer failed to give assurance and guarantee of safety nor he allowed long distance trial of the vehicle as desired by the complainant. The complainant says that he had paid a total amount of Rs. 1,94,068/- to the accused No. 1 towards the purchase price of the vehicle.