IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1522 of 2012

Uttam Bose, the Managing Director CEO of
M/s Hindustan Motors Limited, Kolkata. … Petitioner(s).
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand and another … Opp. Party(s).
——
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
——
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.K. Chatruvedy, Advocate.
For the State : A.P.P.
For Opp. Party No. 2 : None.
………

04/19.02.2020: None appears on behalf of opposite party No. 2 even on second call,

though their names are reflected in the cause list. On 10.2.2020, also none
appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2, thus an opportunity was given, but
inspite of said opportunity, none appears on behalf of opposite party No. 2 today
and thus this case is disposed of on merits after hearing the counsel for the
petitioner and the State.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no offence under the
Indian Penal Code is made out, which is apparent from the complaint petition
itself. The dispute is a consumer dispute, which does not come under the
purview of sections 420, 406 and 34 IPC. He further submits that the a consumer
case has already been filed by the complainant. He also submits that in view of
the aforesaid facts, the entire criminal proceeding i.e. FIR being Govindpur P.S.
Case No. 208/12 (G.R. No. 1981 of 2012) is liable to be quashed and set aside.

3. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner and after going through
the record, I find that the complaint petition is the basis of the FIR as the same
was sent under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registering the FIR. In the complaint
petition, the complainant stated that his wife purchased a vehicle from M/s
Hindustan Motors Limited through its dealer M/s Sai Astha. The said vehicle
broke down and was sent for servicing, where its engine was changed but the
vehicle was not restored to its original condition and it could not be plied on the
road. It is also alleged that the matter was informed to the proprietor of M/s Sai
Astha and M/s Hindustan Motors Limited, but neither the proprietor of M/s Sai
Astha nor the accused persons nor any officials of the company turned up to
resolve the dispute. The vehicle is still lying in the service centre. It is alleged that
a defective vehicle has been sold intentionally. On the aforesaid allegation, the
Managing Director, M/s Hindustan Motors Limited and the proprietor of M/s Sai
Astha as well as the proprietor of the Service Centre have been made accused.

4. From the aforesaid allegation, I find that there is no ingredients of
Section 420 IPC present in this case. In this case, the vehicle started mal-
functioning and broke down. There is no allegation or overtact attributed against
this petitioner. The case is a consumer dispute given a colour of criminal case.
Further I find that no offence under Section 406 IPC is also made out against the
petitioner as well as other accused persons.

5. Since no offence is made out under the penal law, I am inclined to
allow this petition. Thus, the FIR being Govindpur P.S. Case No. 208/12 (G.R.
No. 1981 of 2012), registered for the offence under Sections 420, 406 and 34
IPC, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Dhanbad, is
quashed and set aside.

6. Accordingly, this petition is allowed.

Anu/C.P.3 (ANANDA SEN, J.)