BMW INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED(A1),REP.,BY ITS PRESIDENT AND MANAGING DERECTOR PETER FRIDRICH KRONCHNABL Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') seeking to quash the proceedings in crime no.94 of 2010 of Trimulgherry police station, Hyderabad.

(2.) The second respondent/defacto complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioners/A.1 to A.5 stating as follows.

(3.) The first respondent-police filed counter affidavit stating as follows: The present case was registered in pursuance of a private complaint lodged by the second respondent. After registration of the crime, notices were sent to the accused company seeking information and the company responded vide letter dated 15.12.2010. With regard to the stand of the accused, 'mutually accepted practice', the accused submitted only 'retail target charts'. In industry parlance, 'retail' is sale to a customer by a 'dealer' whereas purchase by the dealer from the manufacturer is 'wholesale'. The evidence gathered indicates no other mutual understanding in regard to retail targets. The dealership and Deferred Payment Agreements require that all cars be sent subsequent to orders by dealers, and the investigation discloses that the Purchase Order system was followed in practice for CKD cars. Besides obvious inference of the respective designations of accused, the evidence gathered indicates that the accused had responsibilities in day-to-day functioning of the accused company, and they were intimately involved in the functioning of their various departments.