Telangana High Court
The Managing Director vs State Of Telangana on 22 December, 2022
Bench: K.Surender
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
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
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
AIR 2013 SC 1433
AIR 2019 SC 4463
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.
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.
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
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITOIN No.4780 OF 2021
Date: 22.12.2022.
kvs
