JUDGMENT
Rekha Kumari, J.
Page 1173
1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 10.08.2005 passed in Complaint Case No. 76/05, T.R. No. 1519 of 2005 whereby the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram has ordered to issue summons against the petitioners to face trial for the offences under Sections 418, 406 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The case of the complainant opposite party No. 2 Manoj Kumar Singh is that he is a business man. He was in need of a motor vehicle for his business. Petitioner No. 3 Page 1174 Manoj Kumar, an agent of Maurya Motors Limited met him and on his assurance to get a good vehicle, he came to Patna and met the other petitioners. They also assured him a defect free new vehicle with warranty of three years under hire purchase agreement with Tata Motors Limited. Accordingly the complainant entered into an agreement for purchase of Tata 207 diesel vehicle and purchased the same. However, after running 7000 Kms. the back compressor started giving trouble. After running of 10000 Kms. he went to the work shop of the petitioners for servicing. The petitioners assured that the defect would be cured. But the trouble continued and then again servicing was done with no effect. He then informed the petitioners and also gave notice to replace the engine but the petitioners did not pay any heed to it. The petitioners thus cheated him and committed criminal breach of trust.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that no offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust arises in this case. The allegation, at best, discloses that there was a breach of contract for which the remedy is civil and the Opposite Party No. 2 has already filed a case being 7 of 2005 in Consumer court in the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Rohtas. He further submitted that the petitioners are employees of dealers of Tata Motors which sells vehicles on commission and provides services to the vehicles at its workshop and they have nothing to do with the manufacturing defect and the alleged defect appeared to be a manufacturing defect and so, the matter has to be settled by Opposite Party No. 2 with the manufacturer in accordance with the terms and conditions.
4. Learned Counsel for Opposite Party No. 2 by filing a counter affidavit opposed the above submissions and contended that the allegations disclose criminal offence against the petitioners. He has also filed a copy of warranty to show that the warranty period in case of engine is three years.
5. It may be mentioned that in order to attract the offence under Sections 418 of the Indian Penal Code, one of the ingredients is that the accused must cheat the complainant and for offence of cheating there must be dishonest intention from the very beginning but in this case only because the vehicle purchased had a defective engine, it cannot be said that the petitioners knew from the beginning that the vehicle was defective and so, intentionally got it purchased by the complainant. Therefore, no offence of cheating punishable under Section 418 of the Indian penal Code is made out in this case.
6. Then as regards criminal breach of trust, there must be dishonest misappropriation of property by the accused but in this case there is no allegation that any of the petitioners misappropriated anything. So, no offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is also made out in this case.
It also appears from the allegations that the dispute is purely of civil nature and the complainant has also filed a case in the consumer court. In the result, this application is allowed and the impugned order is quashed.