VENKATRAM MAMILLAPALLE Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant petition has been filed for quashing of F.I.R. of Deoghar Town P.S. Case No.285 of 2021 under Sec. 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The complaint petition filed by one Rachna Kumari which is the basis of present case. As per the prosecution case, the complainant/informant had approached Renault India Pvt. Ltd. showroom situated at Deoghar for purchase of Duster RXS 110PS BSIV (Diesel Car) which was supplied on 20/6/2019 was found to be not the model for which tax invoice and account ledger were raised. As per documents, Duster RXS 85PS BSIV was supplied in place of Duster RXS 110PS BSIV for which the order was placed.

(3.) Instant petition has been filed mainly on two main grounds. First is that the petitioner is Chief Executive Officer of Renault India Pvt. Ltd. with Head Office at Chennai and had not directly dealt with the customers at Deoghar and therefore, it cannot be said that he had induced the informant or made misrepresentation of any kind. There is no effective role or control in end sale of the vehicles by such authorized dealers to any prospective buyer. There is no material to disclose the fundamental ingredient of the offence under Sec. 406/420 of the IPC. To make out an offence under Sec. 406 of the IPC, there must be some material to show (i) entrustment of a property or dominion over property, (ii) the accused was actuated by dishonest intention, misappropriated it or converted to his own use. It is settled law that dishonest inducement is the basic ingredient of the offence of cheating. In the absence of any allegation of inducement in the FIR against the petitioner or any of its employees, the offence under Sec. 420 is not made out. Director of a Company can only be prosecuted if there is sufficient evidence of his active role coupled with dishonest intention to commit the offence.