ANIRUDH GAUTAM Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (For short 'CrPC') has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 11.03.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 28427 of 2014 whereby the petitioner along with two others, namely, Mohan Kumar and Deepak Dayal has been summoned to face trial for the offence punishable under Sec. 420 of the Indian Penal Code (For short 'IPC').

(2.) In short, the case of the complainant is that he had purchased two buses from Maurya Motors Pvt. Ltd., a commercial vehicle dealer of Tata Motors Ltd. and had paid a total amount of Rs. 44,94,000.00 as consideration money. The two buses bearing Registration No. BR 04N 0661 and BR 04N 0694 were financed by Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd. The complainant-opposite party No. 2 sent those buses for regular servicing to Maurya Motors Ltd. However, certain technical and mechanical faults were detected in those buses during warranty period and when the complainant contacted the petitioner who was the Sales Manager of Tata Motors Ltd. in this regard, he asked him to take the vehicles to Maurya Motors Ltd. for photograph. As per his advice, the vehicles were taken to Maurya Motors Ltd. and after photography, when the vehicles were being taken to Siwan stand, the windshield of one of the buses shattered into many fragments when the windshield broke. An information, in this regard, was also given to the officers of Tata Motors Ltd. Subsequently, on inquiry, the complainant came to know that the aforesaid vehicles were initially sold to one M/s. Eden Transport Pvt. Ltd. and when M/s. Eden Transport Company found the vehicles defective, it returned the vehicles and subsequently, the old vehicles were supplied to the petitioner by the dealer Maurya Motors Ltd. in the name of new vehicles. It has been alleged in the complaint that when the complainant registered his complaint before the accused persons, they refused to redress his grievance. The complainant felt cheated by the accused person and, hence, a complaint was lodged.

(3.) The complainant was examined on solemn affirmation under Sec. 200 of the Crimial P.C. and in course of inquiry under Sec. 202 of the CrPC, besides the complainant, one more witness, namely, Churamani Das was examined in support of the complaint. After recording the statement of the complainant and the inquiry witness, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, vide impugned order dated 11.03.2015, found a prima facie case to be made out against the petitioner and two others under Section 420 of the Penal Code and summoned them to face trial. The aforesaid order dated 11.03.2015 is under challenge in the present application.