MERCEDES Vs. PURUSHOTTAM BHUDHRAJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 482 of the Code o Criminal procedure with a prayer to quash the order dated 18.02.2016 passed b) the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, in a private complaint filed by the present opposite party, taking cognizance of the offences punishable under (for short 'the I.P.C.') against the present petitioners.

(2.) The opposite party filed a complaint with the submissions that he is the Director of a Private Limited Company in the name and style of "Divij Motors Private Company Ltd." having its registered office, show-room and work shop facilities at Bhubaneswar. He was having dealership of Maruti Vehicles. The petitioner No. 1-Mercedes-Benz India Private Limited is a company manufacturing vehicles in the name of Mercedes Benz and it did not have any authorized dealer in the State of Odisha. It invited applications for a dealership but there was no response. The complainant had previous acquaintance with Rahul Kulkarni, D.G.M. of the aforesaid company (present petitioner No. 4), who induced him to apply for dealership and also introduced him to other accused persons. It was further alleged that he was given false assurance for long term dealership and according he submitted application on 4th of April 2012. After discussions and meeting the accused persons issued a letter of intent (LOI) on 31.07.2012 for proposed dealership at Bhubaneswar in Odisha for Mercedes Passenger Cars in favour of the complaint for a period of one year. The complainant further alleged that was hesitant to accept for one year but he was assured by the accused person that it was a mere formality and the dealership would be made permanet subsequently. Basing on their assurance, the complaint invested a sum of rupees around three crores for establishment of provisional show-room and workshop etc. at Bhubaneswar. It was submitted that show-room etc., were according to the specifications of the principal company. The complainant also complied other formalities like bank guarantee etc. and selling of vehicles also started. It was averred in the complaint petition that there was delay in completion of interim show-room and work shop facilities since all the required equipments were to fa-purchased only from the approved vendors of the principal company. There was also delay in finalizing the proposed show-room and workshop facilities. Tl complainant averred that despite all these, he met the sales targets as fixed the principal company. It is alleged that all of a sudden in a letter dated 12.07.2011 issued by the accused persons, the complainant was informed that the LOI issued in his favour would not be extended since there was no progress in making operational a fully functional show-room and workshop facilities besides non-fulfilment of man-power specification with respect to quantity and quality, both in sales and after sales services. The complainant alleged that such letter was issued with an ulterior motive to give dealership of the company to another person and to cause unnecessary financial loss as well as loss of reputation to the complainant and his dealership.

(3.) It was further averred in the complaint petition that since the accused persons were not interested to carry on business with the complainant by extending the LOI, the complainant agreed to such termination of dealership on settlement of legitimate claims. Thereafter, correspondences were made between the parties and new spare parts of the company remaining with the complainant were taken back and there were some negotiation regarding settlement of dues and furnishing of Bank guarantee. Ultimately as to the settlement of amount for reconciliation, the complainant addressed a letter to the accused company claiming an amount of Rs. 10, 30,00,000/-. But it was rejected by the company and its officials by the raising counter claim of Rs. 6,66,869/-. They also threatened to invoke the Bank guarantee furnished by the complainant. It was further alleged that the complainant refuted such claim but instead of verifications, the accused persons invoked the Bank guarantee given by the complainant on 28.04.2014 and gave a proposal to the complainant in letter dated 29.04.2014 for settling the disputes. Hence, the complainant alleged that all the actions of the accused persons and the principal company were with a clear intention of cheating and defrauding the complainant causing him financial loss with the sole purpose of providing the dealership to another person. Thus, the complainant alleged that by not extending the period of LOI as verbally agreed upon between the parties and by invoking the Bank guarantee given by the complainant illegally, the company and its officials as accused persons committed offences punishable under Sections 120-B of 406 of 420 of 34 of the I. P.O.