Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.33925 of 2002 =========================================================== Against the order dated 21.6.2002 passed in Complaint Case No.565(C) of 2002/T.R. No.1441 of 2002 by the court of Sri S.N. Tiwary, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patna. =========================================================== 1. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited., a Company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act and having its registered office at Bombay House, Homi Modi Street, Mumbai through Bipin S. Palekar, Deputy Manager (Law) and its authorized signatory. 2. M/s Phooltas Autos Private Limited, a Company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at IVth Floor, Sumitra Sadan, West Boring Canal Road, P.S. Shri Krishna Puri, Town and District-Patna, through its Managing Director, Shri Mohan Himmatsingka. .... .... Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Tulsi Singh, son of Late Mukhram Singh, resident of House No.195, Kautilya Nagar, Raja Bazar, P.S. Shastri Nagar, Town and District- Patna. .... .... Opposite Parties. =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : M/s. Vinay Krishna Tripathy and Gadadhar Prasad Singh, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Dashrath Mehta, A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad Sinha, Advocate. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA CAV JUDGMENT Dated: 31st January, 2012. (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA) --------------- This application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed on behalf of the petitioners to quash the order dated 21.6.2002 passed in Complaint Case No.565(C) of 2002/T.R. No.1441 of 2002 by the court of Sri S.N. Tiwary, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patna, summoning the accused, named in the complaint petition, including the petitioners, on inquiry under Section 202 of the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33925 of 2002 dt.31-01-2012 2 / 5 2 Code of Criminal Procedure, finding prima facie case under [STATUTE] against them. 2. In brief, the case is that the opposite party no.2, Tulsi Singh, filed the Complaint Case No.565(C) of 2002 in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, alleging therein that he purchased a Tata Sumo DLX vehicle manufactured by the accused-petitioner no.1, a reputed company, from the show room of its authorized dealer, accused- petitioner no.2 on 17.2.1999. The purchased vehicle was registered in the District Transport Office, Patna, having its Registration No.BR 1P/3735. The vehicle was under warranty for the period of 18 months from the date of delivery of the vehicle, i.e., 17.2.1999. According to the warranty condition, the vehicle was brought in the workshop of the accused-petitioner no.2, for three free services. Apart from the above, whenever any of the trouble arose, the said vehicle was always brought to the workshop of the accused-petitioner no.2. While in pursuant to the advertisement of the vehicle by the accused-petitioner no.1 and also by accused nos.2 and 3, Regional Manager, Regional Sales Office of M/s. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited (TELCO), Jamshedpur, and the Regional Manager Vehicle, TELCO Regional Office, Appeejay House, 5th Floor, Block No.1, 15 Park Street, Kolkatta-700016, the opposite party no.2 discussed with the accused no.4, the Assistant Manager TELCO, Sub Regional Office, 109, Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33925 of 2002 dt.31-01-2012 3 / 5 3 Adharshila Complex, 3rd Floor, South Gandhi Maidan, Patna, and decided to purchase one Tata Sumo DLX vehicle but unfortunately, the vehicle started giving trouble well within the warranty period in the year 1999 itself. As a result of that, in December, 1999, engine of the vehicle was got repaired at the workshop of the accused-petitioner no.2 and in course of repairing some parts of the engine were replaced. When again the vehicle started giving trouble in the month of August, 2000, after covering the distance of about 14 kilometers, then piston and ring set alongwith other important parts of the engine were got replaced but even then the defect could not be removed. The further case of the opposite party no.2 is that he, being the politician, had purchased the vehicle to move in his locality without trouble and had invested the heavy amount but due to trouble in the vehicle he could not attend the social function in time. The opposite party no.2 further alleged that he always approached the accused persons for replacement of the vehicle or to return the price of the vehicle but there was no response in spite of sending the legal notice also to them. As such, the opposite party no.2 had been cheated by the accused-petitioners and its other officials, named in the complaint petition, and had to suffer heavy loss. 3. After filing of the aforesaid complaint petition by the opposite party no.2, Tusli Singh, on inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court of Sri S.N. Tiwary, Judicial Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33925 of 2002 dt.31-01-2012 4 / 5 4 Magistrate, First Class, Patna, summoned the accused, named in the complaint petition, including the petitioners, finding prima facie case under [STATUTE] against them. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners made submission that if the allegation, as made in the complaint petition, is taken to be at its face value and accepted to be true, the ingredients for constituting the offence under [STATUTE] are lacking and the dispute appears to be of civil in nature. Learned counsel for the petitioners further made submission that prior to the filing of the present complaint case bearing Complaint Case No.565(C) of 2002 on 2.4.2002, the opposite party

Applicable IPC Section: 420

Statute Text:
Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Cheating and there by dishonestly inducing delivery of property, or the making, alteration or destruction of a valuable security. Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.