ASHUTOSH SINGHAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed for quashing the order dated 6.3.93 passed in Complaint Case No. 127/93 by Sri R.P. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gaya, through which he has taken cognizance against the petitioner and others.

(2.) THE brief facts leading to this application is as follows. The petitioner is one of the Directors of M/s. Kumar Distributors Private Limited who were distributors of Beltek T.V. and has his own service centre to repair T.V. etc. It is further alleged that a T.V. was sold to O.P. No. 2 Sri Pritam Singh Bagga by the dealer at Gaya, namely, Devendra Kumar. The said T.V was gifted to Smt. Satpal Kaur, sister -in -law of O.P. No. 2 by him. Some defects were detected in the said T.V. and the sister -in -law or O.P. No. 2 got the T.V. repaired by some local dealer. Subsequently, she wanted that the T.V. should be repaired by the authorised dealer of Calcutta as the defect occurred during the Guarantee period. Accordingly, a representative of Smt. Satpal Kaur contacted the petitioner and requested him to give a letter in the name of the dealer at Chittranjan address. Accordingly, the petitioner gave a letter addressed to Lalit Jalan at Calcutta who was the main distributor of the Beltek T.V. in the area. The representative of Smt. Satpal Kaur contacted the Asansol office of Mr. Jalan who found that the said T.V. was repaired by some other mechanic and hence he refused to accept it for repair. The petitioner again wrote to Mr. Jalan for getting the T.V. repaired. On account of this dispute, the complaint was filed by Sri Pritam Singh Bagga O.P. No. 2 against this petitioner and others. The complainant was examined on Solemn Affirmation and the case was transferred by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya to the court of Sri R.P. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gaya under Section 192 Cr.P.C. who examined some witnesses and issued summons against the petitioner and other accused persons under Sections 420, 425, 120 (B) and 504 I.P.C. on 6.3.93.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the terms of the Warranty issued for the sale of T.V. the same Warranty will be applicable to the Distributor, if any defect is found during the Warranty period. But since the private mechanics were engaged who handled the T.V. and removed some parts, the terms of Warranty automatically expires and it can not be enforced. Moreover, the petitioner is one of the Directors of M/s. Kumar Distributors Pvt. Ltd. who were distributors of Beltek T.V. and is not manufacturer and. thus he can not be held responsible for manufacturing defect or any other defects which subsequently was found in the T.V. Still to avoid any litigation, the petitioner wrote a letter to Mr. Jalan at Calcutta to get the T.V. repaired. It is further submitted that the complainant moved before the Consumers Forum for compensator but the same was dismissed as the Consumers Forum did not find enough evidence against the petitioner. It is further submitted that on the last date the petitioner was directed to file supplementary Affidavit on the point whether the matter had been settled outside the court. Accordingly, a supplementary Affidavit has been filed by the petitioner wherein he has clearly stated that he got the T.V. repaired and if the complainant O.P. No. 2 wants to take delivery of the T.V., he can take it from the office of M/s. Kumar Distributors Pvt. Ltd. at Patna. The com -plainant -O.P. No. 2 did not take delivery of the T.V. on the ground that he wanted a different set. In that view of the matter, it does not appear that there is any possibility of compromise. On the last date also, nobody turned up on behalf of O.P. No. 2 Three weeks time was allowed for settlement between the parties and subsequently the case was taken up for hearing to -day i.e. after three and half months. To -day also, nobody turned up on behalf of O.P.No.2 In that view of the ' matter, it is clear that O.P. No. 2 is in no way interested to compromise the case, and the fact remains that a Beltek T.V. was purchased by the O.P.No. 2 for his sister -in -law. The said T.V. was subsequently found defective and before he presented the same before the original Distributor for repair, it was handled by some private mechanics. So, the original Distributor did not take the T.V. for repair. The present petitioner is admittedly one of the Directors of M/s. Kumar Distributors Pvt. Ltd. and he has filed an affidavit to show that he repaired the T.V. and is ready for its delivery to the complainant -O.P.No.2, whenever he comes to take such delivery.