IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.15556 of 2007 JAGDISH KHATTAR & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- Cr.Misc. No.18445 of 2007 M/S MARUTI UDYOG LTD. THRU. SURENDER KUMAR Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 5 29.4.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Vide order dated 24.8.2006 passed by Sri S.K. Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna cognizance has been taken under sections 418 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code in Complaint Case No. 1178 (C ) of 2006. Summons have been issued against the petitioners who were alleged to be the senior functionary of M/s Maruti Udyog Ltd. Though notice has been issued to opposite party no.2 but there is no representation on behalf of opposite party no.2. The short facts are that the present complaint came to be filed by the complainant that she purchased a Maruti Alto Lx Euro with A/C from Karlo Automobiles (P ) Ltd. Authorized Maruti Dealer, Boring Road, Patna after full payment. It is alleged that A/C of the car started giving trouble but the same could not be satisfactorily rectified after approaching many a times the authorized dealer/workshop. The complainant got the A/C of the car examined by yet another mechanic who opined that A/C fitted in the car is not original rather it is retrofit and it did not have the original fitting from the factory. Based on such information the present complaint came to be filed. - 2 - Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that all the senior functionaries of the company have been intentionally made accused to bring about undue pressure on the Company when the allegation as per the allegation made in the complaint they have no role to play in the matter. If at all any mischief was played it could have been played at the level of the dealer and the liability of criminality cannot be brought about against these petitioners. There is nothing to show that the mischief alleged in the complaint in any way is related to the intent or conduct of these petitioners. It is also stated that if there was any kind of deficiency in the service then the opposite party no.2 had remedy under the Consumer Protection Act where proper evidence could have been led as to whether the so called A/C was original or retrofitted because mere statement of a mechanic cannot be enough to make out a case against these petitioners. It is also stated that no ingredients of sections 418 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against these petitioners. From the materials on records and submission made in this regard the petitioners have made out a case for interference. It is a case of malicious prosecution only to harass the senior officials of the company. In that view of the matter, the order taking cognizance dated 24.8.2006 against the present petitioners stands quashed. Both the applications are allowed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)