SWAROOP GHOSH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding in connection with Hazaribagh Sadar P.S. Case No. 144 of 2000 dated 22.04.2000, registered under Sections 420/467/468/409 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) IT appears that at the relevant time, petitioner was working as Regional Manager of H.C.L. Picker Ltd. and was posted at Ranchi. It is alleged that petitioner along with one Tapas Mallik approached complainant for purchase of Sonorex Ultra Sound Scanner (Nebula 505) machine. It is alleged that said machine was demonstrated by the petitioner and Tapas Mallik and they gave assurance that company will provide necessary services after purchase. Accordingly, complainant purchased aforesaid machine and paid its price through different bank drafts i.e Rs. 2,60,000/ - (Rs. Two lacs sixty thousand). Thereafter machine installed in the premises of complainant. It is stated that after few days of installation, the machine started giving trouble accordingly complainant reported the matter to Regional Office of the Company at Ranchi. Thereafter machine was attended by the company. However, again machine started giving trouble and thereafter matter was reported to the Office of Company, i.e. H.C.L. Picker at Calcutta for removing the defect. It is alleged that when no service rendered by the Company, the complainant gave legal notice to the company. Thereafter Service Engineer visited complainant 'splace on 24.09. 1997 and repaired the machine. It is stated that the company (H.C.L. Picker Ltd.) handed over a letter to the complainant for entering into contract for annual maintenance of machine. However, there is nothing to show that complainant entered into an agreement for annual maintenance. It appears that later on again, machine started giving trouble and it was again attended by Service Engineer of the company. It then appears that when again machine started giving trouble and none had come from the company to attend it, present case filed. It is submitted by Sri A.K. Sahani that petitioner was Regional Manager of the H.C.L. Picker Ltd. (company) in question till 01.12.1996. Thereafter petitioner resigned from said company and joined another company. It is further submitted that only allegation against petitioner that he gave assurance that proper maintenance services will be provided to the machine after its installation. He then submits that till the petitioner remained in the service of H.C.L. Picker Ltd., proper service provided to the machine. Under the said circumstance, petitioner had not cheated complainant. It is submitted that company, i.e. H.C.L. Picker Ltd. has not been made accused in this case though complainant alleged that company is not attending the machine. Thus, for the fault of company, that too when the petitioner left the company, he cannot be held liable. It is further submitted that warranty period of the machine was only for one year, from the date of installation, i.e 22nd December 1995, which expired on 21.12.1996. There is nothing in the complaint petition to show that complainant entered into annual maintenance agreement. Under the said circumstance after expiry of warranty period, petitioner, as well as H.C.L. Picker Ltd. are not bound to maintain the machine. It is submitted that if complainant has any grievance with regard to the quality of machine, it ought to have file a suit for damage. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that from perusal of paragraph No. 1,2 and 10 of the complaint petition, prima - facie offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against petitioner. Accordingly, he submits that this writ application is liable to be rejected.

(3.) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, I allow this application and quash entire criminal proceeding in connection with Hazaribagh Sadar P.S. Case No. 144 of 2000.