IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.56115 of 2007 1. SANDEEP ANAND, SON OF SHRI SHIVDARSHAN LAL ANAND, RESIDENT OF C-67, OLD DLF COLONY, NEAR SECTOR 14, P.O., P.S., TOWN & DISTRICT GURGAON. 2. M/s. LISPO INDIA PVT. LTD. NEHARPUR KASSAN, BEHIND HERITAGE VILLAGE HOTEL, N.H. 8, MANESAR, DISTRICT GURGAON THROUGH ONE OF ITS DIRECTORS, SANDEEP ANAND, SON OF SHRI SHIVDARSHAN LAL ANAND, RESIDENT OF C-67, OLD DLF COLONY, NEAR SECTOR 14, P.O., P.S., TOWN & DISTRICT GURGAON. ----- PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. TEJ NARAIN GAMI, ADVOCATE, SON OF LATE GENA LAL GAMI, RESIDENT OF M.I.G., 163, LOHIA NAGAR, P.S. KANKARBAGH, DISTRICT PATNA. ----- OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- 2. 30.3.2010 This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 1.12.2005, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 1731 (c) of 2005 by which cognizance has been taken under Sections 418 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. A complaint case was filed in which eight persons have been made accused. The present application has been by M/s. Lispo India Pvt. Ltd., Neharpur Kassan, Behind Heritage Village Hotel, N.H. 8, Manesar, District Gurgaon through one of its Directors (petitioner no. 1) of the said M/s. Lispo India Pvt. Ltd., Neharpur Kassan, Behind Heritage Village Hotel, N.H. 8, Manesar, District Gurgaon. The company is in the business of setting up modular kitchen, which includes the wood work and installation of chimney etc. The allegation in the complaint petition is that the petitioner entered into an agreement with the dealers of M/s. Lispo India Pvt. Ltd namely M/s. Kaff Applicances & Accessories for purchasing and setting up the modular kitchen. Particularly it is said that petitioner made payment in between 21.10.2003 to 2 11.9.2004. Some of the materials in the kitchen were defective as a result of which the complainant informed the dealer who in turn informed the petitioners’ company. The petitioners’ company sent their service Manager and replaced some of the items. The allegation is that even after replacement the Chimney & other fittings are defective. It is said that the dealers did not hand over the bill and the guarantee paper as a result of which the complainant alleges that they have cheated the complainant and are taking advantage of this fact and as such are not replacing the defective items. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as far as the petitioners are concerned, there is no material whatsoever to show that the petitioners had connived with the dealer and not forwarded the guarantee card, bill etc. In a case such as this, it is the dealer who is supposed to supply the guarantee paper and the complainant ought to have ensured that such guarantee papers were supplied to him. Another glaring aspect in this matter is that the petitioners have not given a particular date on which the purchase was made from which this Court could infer that the supply were within the guarantee period. This Court had made some efforts to get the matter settled out side the Court but it has failed. In any event as far as these petitioners are concerned, it cannot be said that they were responsible for not giving the guarantee card to the complainant. If the supplied articles were defective, the complainant could have approached the petitioners if he had a guarantee card and it would have been the 3 duty of the supplier to replace the defective items. However, this has not happened. Counsel for the opposite party on the other hand submits that it is because of the defective supply of articles the complainant is faced with such a problem. Electrical appliances for one reason or the other, may be defective and it is admitted case of the complainant that the petitioners had in fact replaced the articles which were found to be defective just after the installation of the kitchen and as such this Court cannot infer that the petitioners would be directly responsible for not replacing the Chimney and other fittings. In the result, I quash the order dated 1.12.2005, as far as it concerns the petitioners Sandeep Anand and M/s. Lispo India Pvt. Ltd. This application is allowed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)