Case: Anurag Mehrotra &amp; Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra Through The Secretary, Home Department &amp; Others

Govardhan was bed-ridden. The medical papers show that for short time he was sick but he had recovered. Admittedly he is Director of the company and there are specific allegations against him that he made false representation and induced the first informant to purchase the vehicle.14. The record collected by police and the submissions made show that on the date when the vehicle was handed over to the first informant, it had running of more than 40,000 kilometers though it is the case of the first informant that there was running of more than 80,000 kilometers. The independent record shows that it had running of more than 40,000 kilometers when the vehicle was handed over. It was submitted that vehicle was handed over 2-3 months prior to registration. The running of 40,000 kilometers is of that date. That record is sufficient to show that it was a used vehicle and it was being used from the year 2012. More observations can be made with regard to the illegal manner in which it was used. Unfortunately other material is not collected by police to ascertain as to how for such long period the vehicle was used without getting proper registration. Ordinarily only for a short period such vehicles are used on temporary registration and they are required to be sold and after that the other vehicles are used for giving the Demo to the customers. In any case, it cannot be said in the present matter that new model of 2014 or 2015 model was sold by Salasar Dealer to the first informant. Considering the price which was taken from the first informant and the allegations and the other record, this Court holds that it is not possible to give relief in favour of the applicants from proceeding Nos.1004/2018 and 994/2018.15. Allegations made as against the applicant from Proceeding No.951/2018 are of different nature. It was submitted for the first informant that when the Minister of Public Enterprises, Government of India, had contacted the Company to inform the grievance of the first informant, who is a sitting Member of Parliament, the Company had informed that there was nothing wrong in the transaction and so it can be said that the applicant from the Proceeding No.951/2018 had also joined hands with the owners of Salasar Dealer. This submission is not at all acceptable. First the vehicle was purchased by Nagpur Dealer and then the vehicle was purchased by Salasar Dealer from Nagpur Dealer and the Company had no control over those transactions. Similarly the Company had no control over the representations made by Salasar Dealer with the first informant and it cannot be said that false representations were made by the Company that it was 2015 model. The offence of cheating is completed when on the basis of false representation, consideration passes. Before coming into picture of applicant from proceeding 951/2018, offence was complete and support or explanation given for Salasar by the manufacturer after the offence cannot be called as the act of abating the crime of cheating or any offence creating false record. This Court has no hesitation to hold that relief needs to be granted in favour of the applicant from Criminal Application No.951/2018. On the basis of the allegations made against this applicant and the aforesaid material, it is not possible to even frame charge against this applicant and nothing can be achieved by asking him to face trial for the aforesaid offences.16. Both the sides placed reliance on some reported cases in the present matter. Learned Senior Counsel for the first informant placed reliance on the cases reported as :(1) AIR 1957 Calcutta 520 (In re Central Calcutta Bank Ltd (in Liqn.) (2) (2010) 10 SCC 361 (V.P. Shrivastava v. Indian Explosives Ltd.) (3) (1999) 3 SCC 259 (Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi.) (4) (2009) 4 SCC 439 (Mahesh Chaudhary v. State of Rajasthan) (5) (2013) 11 SCC 559 (C.P. Subhash v. Inspector of Police, Chennai) (6) (2004) 12 SCC 336 (Damodar v. State of Rajasthan) (7) (2017) 15 SCC 560 (State v. Anup Kumar Srivastava) (8) (2014) 14 SCC 22 (Mosiruddin Munshi v. Mohd. Siraj) 17. The learned counsel Shri. K.C. Sant for the applicant from Criminal Application No.1004/2018 has placed reliance on the case reported as AIR 1992 SC 604 (State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal).18. The Apex Court has discussed the law developed on the power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with regard to the proceedings like the present one. In all these cases cited by both the sides, the Apex Court has laid down that when there are allegations which constitute cognizable offence, at initial stage it is never desirable to quash the F.I.R. For giving such relief, there should be the circumstances as mentioned in the case of Bhajanlal (cited supra). It is also made clear that the Court needs to keep in mind the statutory power given to police of investigation into cognizable offences and ordinarily the Court needs to avoid interference into the investigation at the initial stage. Submissions were made that not only in the present matter but in other matters it is noticed that Salasar Dealer was involved in creation of false record and complaints of cheating are filed against it by other persons. In such cases only after thorough investigation more material can be collected and more offences can be detected. Such offences involve fraud against Government also as it is noticed that taxes like VAT or taxes to the local body are not paid when such transactions are made by the Dealer. There is power with the investigating agency to make investigation on that line also. Thus this is not a fit case to grant relief in favour of the persons who were doing business of dealership like the applicants from Proceeding Nos.1004/2018 and 994/2018 but the relief can be granted in favour of applicant from Proceeding No.951/2018.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]18. The Apex Court has discussed the law developed on the power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with regard to the proceedings like the present one. In all these cases cited by both the sides, the Apex Court has laid down that when there are allegations which constitute cognizable offence, at initial stage it is never desirable to quash the F.I.R. For giving such relief, there should be the circumstances as mentioned in the case of Bhajanlal (cited supra). It is also made clear that the Court needs to keep in mind the statutory power given to police of investigation into cognizable offences and ordinarily the Court needs to avoid interference into the investigation at the initial stage. Submissions were made that not only in the present matter but in other matters it is noticed that Salasar Dealer was involved in creation of false record and complaints of cheating are filed against it by other persons. In such cases only after thorough investigation more material can be collected and more offences can be detected. Such offences involve fraud against Government also as it is noticed that taxes like VAT or taxes to the local body are not paid when such transactions are made by the Dealer. There is power with the investigating agency to make investigation on that line also. Thus this is not a fit case to grant relief in favour of the persons who were doing business of dealership like the applicants from Proceeding Nos.1004/2018 and 994/2018 but the relief can be granted in favour of applicant from Proceeding No.951/2018.Allegations made as against the applicant from Proceeding No.951/2018 are of different nature. It was submitted for the first informant that when the Minister of Public Enterprises, Government of India, had contacted the Company to inform the grievance of the first informant, who is a sitting Member of Parliament, the Company had informed that there was nothing wrong in the transaction and so it can be said that the applicant from the Proceeding No.951/2018 had also joined hands with the owners of Salasar Dealer. This submission is not at all acceptable. First the vehicle was purchased by Nagpur Dealer and then the vehicle was purchased by Salasar Dealer from Nagpur Dealer and the Company had no control over those transactions. Similarly the Company had no control over the representations made by Salasar Dealer with the first informant and it cannot be said that false representations were made by the Company that it was 2015 model. The offence of cheating is completed when on the basis of false representation, consideration passes. Before coming into picture of applicant from proceeding 951/2018, offence was complete and support or explanation given for Salasar by the manufacturer after the offence cannot be called as the act of abating the crime of cheating or any offence creating false record. This Court has no hesitation to hold that relief needs to be granted in favour of the applicant from Criminal Application No.951/2018. On the basis of the allegations made against this applicant and the aforesaid material, it is not possible to even frame charge against this applicant and nothing can be achieved by asking him to face trial for the aforesaid offences.