Case: Anand Mahindra Vs. Saudan Singh &amp; Another

3. Appellant herein is the Managing Director of M/s MahindraMahindra Ltd., a Public Limited Company manufacturing vehicles including one known as Commander Jeep. Indisputably, the Company has appointed dealers to sell their products. First respondent herein is said to have purchased one Commander Jeep from Bhopal Motors Ltd. on 19.9.1997. The said vehicle was found to be defective. According to the complainant in place of new engine an old engine was fitted and thereupon old engine No. embossed. It was further stated that gear box and clutch plates of the vehicle were not from the original company and it got slipped once the vehicle ran.

Reasoning:
4. We have been taken through the complaint petition. We fail to understand as to how the complaint petition even if given face value and taken to be correct in its entirety constituted an offence so as to enable the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate to take cognizance thereof under Sections 379,406,420,467 r/wof the Indian Penal Code and process issued against the appellant. Strangely enough all the accused persons named in the complaint petition are stated to be Managing Directors of Bhopal Motors Ltd, Sanghi Brothers and M/s MahindraMahindra Ltd. The complaint petition does not name any individual. Summons, admittedly, therefore would not issued in the names of individuals. An offence under the Indian Penal Code particularly an offence of conspiracy must precede application of mind by the persons who are accused of committing such an offence.5. The complaint petition, therefore,was not maintainable.6. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the High Court committed a serious error in not interfering in the matter as continuation of the proceeding as against the appellant herein amounts to abuse of process of the Court.