MARUTI UDYOG LIMITED Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners. Nobody appears either on behalf of respondent No.1 State of Bihar or respondent no.2 Sachidanand Sah.

(2.) THIS application, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed with a prayer to issue appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioners in complaint case no. 145/2000 including the order of taking cognizance dated 22.4.2000 under Sections 420 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code, passed by Sri S. S. Rao, learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.

(3.) IT is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they are not at all liable for the action of the dealer. It is also pointed out that dealer himself sent a letter admitting his fault and undertook to deliver the vehicle by 31.3.99 and also assured to compensate by paying interest at the rate of 18% per annum till the period of delivery and, therefore, petitioners are not at all liable for the lapse on the part of the dealer. It was further submitted that from perusal of the complaint petition, it will appear that entire allegation is against the dealer of the vehicle and not against the petitioners and agreement has been entered into between the respondent no.21 complainant and dealer, not with respondent no. 2/complainant and petitioners and, therefore, petitioners are not at all liable and no case is made out against them. It is also pointed out that as per the dealership agreement with the Maruti Udyog Limited and the dealer; the entire responsibility of delivery of vehicle to the credited customers' vests on the dealer and it is he alone who is liable if the delivery is not made to the credited customer. In this connection, learned counsel drew my attention to Clauses 5, 18 and 19 of the dealership agreement in between Maruti Udyog Limited and M/s. Somani Swiss Industries Ltd., according to the terms of which, company will not be liable and those Clauses are quoted herein below.