Gulab C.Gupta,J. - (1.)Applicants, accused persons summoned to appear before the Additional Chief judicial magistrate, Bilaspur in Cr. Case No. 365/1987 to face trial for offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C have approached this Court invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P.C., submitting that proceedings in the aforesaid Criminal Case amount to gross abuse of process of law and should, therefore, be quashed.
(2.)Applicant No.1, Vinod Doshi is the Chairman and applicant No.2, Rakesh Mehta the Market Development Executive of M/s. Premier Automobiles Ltd., a public limited company engaged in manufacture and sale of Premier Cars in the Country. M/s. National Garage, a registered partnership firm of Raipur, is the duly authorised dealer of the aforesaid company for Chhattisgarh Region and Non-applicants Heeralal Shah and T.S. Chawhan represent the said partnership firm at Raipur and Bilaspur respectively. Respondent. Santosh A wasthy filed a complaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur on 20th April, 1987 alleging commission of Criminal offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. by the applicants and respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The said Non-applicant submitted that he was an Industrialist at Bilaspur and needed a Premier Padmini car for his business purpose. He alleged that on 112-1987 the applicants and respondent No.3 had come to Bilaspur and were available at the Branch Office of M/s. National Garage at link road, Bilaspur. According to the complaint, the branch office of M/s. National Garage at Bilaspur was newly established and was interested in promoting sale of the car in the area. The complainant claims to have met the applicants and respondents No.3 and 4 and expressed his desire to purchase a car for his use. According to the complainant, the applicants disclosed a scheme to him and other purchasers wherein payment of total price of the car in lump sum before hand would entitle him to the car delivered within 10 days. The complainant further alleged that since he was interested in getting the car within 10 days, he paid the entire price including the cost of transportation on 12-2-1987. The complainant alleged that the applicants, after having obtained the total price from him and others, did not deliver the car within 10 days as promised and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C., The complainant relied on documents disclosed in the complaint and also furnished a list of witnesses which he would examine to support his case. It appears that the learned Magistrate examined the complainant on 20-41987 and fixed the case for 23-4-1987 to decide whether to register the complaint or not. On 23-4-1987 the learned Magistrate heard arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant and held that the statement of the complainant and documents disclose prima facie commission of offence under Section 420 I.P.C. and ordered, issue of process against applicants and non-applicants Nos. 3 and 4. It is, this order which is impugned in this application.
(3.)The submission most vehemently pressed for consideration of this Court by the learned Counsel for the applicants is that the complaint does not, even prima facie, disclose commission of an offence under Section 420 I.P.C. and, therefore, the applicants could not be summoned to face the trial. It is also submitted that a fair reading of the complaint would at the most, show existence of a dispute of civil nature and hence the learned Magistrate should not have taken cognizance of the same. The learned Counsel for the respondent complainant, however, supported the impugned order and submitted that no case whatsoever exists for exercising extra, ordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P.C.