HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Petition No.4780 OF 2021
Between:
The Managing Director,
Hyundai Motor India Limited. ... Petitioner
And
The State of Telangana through
Public Prosecutor and another. ... Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 22.12.2022
Submitted for approval.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to Yes/No
see the Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment
may be marked to Law Yes/No
Reporters/Journals
3 Whether Their
Ladyship/Lordship wish to see Yes/No
the fair copy of the Judgment?
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
+ CRL.P. No. 4780 of 2021
% Dated 22.12.2022
# The Managing Director,
Hyundai Motor India Limited. ... Petitioner
And
$ The State of Telangana through
Public Prosecutor and another ... Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Ch.Pushyam Kiran
^ Counsel for the Respondents: Sri S.Sudershan, Addl. Public
Prosecutor for R1
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1
AIR 2013 SC 1433
2 AIR 2019 SC 4463
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4780 OF 2021
ORDER:
1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/A3 in C.C.No.582 of 2020 on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Khammam.
2. The case of the 2nd respondent/complainant is that he has filed complaint before the police, Khanapur, which was registered as Crime No.32 of 2018 on 25.01.2018. However, the same was closed by the police as false. The grievance of the defacto complainant is that he purchased Hyundai CRETA car from Hyundai showroom in Khammam, of which A1 K.Srikanth is the owner of the said show room. The vehicle was purchased by taking loan on 25.07.2016. Thereafter, in the month of January, 2017, he noticed that a damaged vehicle was sold to him since the panel board was damaged in an accident and it was found painted. Though oral requests were made from January, 2017 to change the vehicle, no such request was adhered to either by this petitioner herein, who is the Managing Director of Hyundai Motors Limited nor the 1st 4 accused, who is the owner of the show-room at Khammam, where he purchased the vehicle.
3. The criminal complaint which was filed before the police was registered as Crime No.32 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 403, 406, 409 and 420 IPC and investigation was taken up. The police found that seven months after purchase of the vehicle, the complainant approached the showroom and also communicated with the Hyundai Motors Private Limited. The police found that there were very small scratchs which happened during the transport of the vehicle and there was no other damage and the complainant had intentionally lodged the complaint with an intention to change the car. Since the allegations of cheating, criminal breach of trust were not established, the police found that the case was false and accordingly filed report.
4. The complainant filed this petition before the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Khammam. Learned Magistrate examined the complainant/2nd respondent, who reiterated his complaint which was made to 5 the police. Having examined the complainant and another friend of the complainant, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence by order dated 16.03.2020 and issued summons to this petitioner and two others. Questioning the said cognizance order, the petitioner has filed the present application.
5. Sri S.Ravi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner/A3 submits that the petitioner cannot be made vicariously liable in the present case. On the basis of a vague allegation that the petitioner herein, who is the Managing Director is also responsible for selling a damaged car, cognizance ought not to have been taken. He relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust v. India Infoline Limited1 and Shiv Kumar Jatia v. State of NCT of Delhi2.
6. The complainant approached A1 stating that the vehicle sold was damaged seven months after taking delivery of the 1 AIR 2013 SC 1433 2 AIR 2019 SC 4463 6 vehicle and running the vehicle. No where in the statement it is mentioned as to how the defacto complainant could not detect the alleged damage of the panel board when the delivery was taken and over a period of seven months. Unless the complainant could prove that as on the date of taking the delivery of the vehicle from the showroom such damage was evident, it cannot be said that after the period of seven months, damaged vehicle was sold.
7. In the event of any grievance, the option left to the complainant would be to approach the consumer forum with his grievance. The petitioner, who is the Managing Director of Hyundai Motors Limited cannot be mulcted with criminal liability on the basis of vague statement made by the complainant that the vehicle belongs to the Hyundai Motors Limited, which was purchased through an authorized showroom. Unless there are specific allegations as to how the Managing Director was complicit in cheating the complainant, the Managing Director of the said company cannot be made as an accused.
7
8. Issuance of summons is a serious matter and as a matter of routine, summons cannot be issued in a criminal case. Unless the Court issuing the summons while taking cognizance on the private complaint finds that an offence is made out on the basis of allegations made by the complainant and has also to determine the persons responsible for the offence that was committed. No where in the complaint nor in the cognizance order it is mentioned as to how this petitioner is liable to be prosecuted for the offence under Sections 420, 403, 406 and 409 of IPC. Admittedly, there was never any misrepresentation which was made by the petitioner herein to the complainant. The question of inducing the complainant does not arise as he approached the showroom at Khammam to purchase the vehicle and the said vehicle was delivered to his satisfaction. Seven months after taking delivery of the vehicle, it cannot be said that damaged vehicle was sold. Neither Section 406 or 409 of IPC are attracted for the reason of there being no entrustment whatsoever to this petitioner, which has been misappropriated or converted to his own use. 8
9. In the result, the proceedings against petitioner /A3 in C.C.No.582 of 2020 on the file of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Khammam, are hereby quashed.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 22.12.2022 Note: L.R copy to be marked.
B/o. kvs REPORT 9 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITOIN No.4780 OF 2021 Date: 22.12.2022.
kvs