Smt. Amita Prakash v. State) Date & Anr.

Relevant brief facts for disposal of this petition are that on

20.07.06, R2 submitted a complaint against the petitioner and describing as “Adhikrit Prabhandhak, M/s U.N. Automobiles” alleging that (i) R2 purchasing a car from above company paid Rs. 20,000/- advance on

22.04.06 (ii) car delivered as per schedule on 28.4.06 and R2 paid Rs. 4 lac through cheque and Rs. 1,01,262/- cash and thus total paid Rs. 5,21,262/- - firm delivered receipts and insurance registration etc (iii) when receipts compared in relation to payment, found that Rs. 10,221/- charged more, thus cheating R2, Rs. 10,221/- excess received. After examination of complainant, cognizance taken and case registered against petitioner for the offence of Section 420 IPC vide order dated 27.7.06. Petitioner contends that (i) amount received is Rs. 5,21,262/- (ii) all the receipts and bills also equals this amount and no extra amount taken (iii) petitioner in no way responsible for the acts of the said company (iv) no allegation against the petitioner in the complaint itself (v) cognizance and registration of petitioner's application on wrong assumption of her looking after work of the company. Assailing impugned order dated 22.11.06, argued that neither any excess amount is taken/received nor petitioner looking after the business.

On behalf of petitioner, submitted that (i) price of the car as per quotation and as per bill is Rs. 4,4,86,614/- (ii) as per stipulation 50% of insurance charges which comes to Rs. 8,220/- of the total amount Rs. 17,640/- were to be born by the seller which accordingly credited in the bill against the car price Rs. 4,86,614/- (iii) Rs. 25,750/- registration and related expenses admittedly incurred by the company (iv) 50% of the insurance amount Rs. 8,822/- also paid by the company (v) total purchase price and above expense Rs. 5,21,212/-, exactly the sum paid by R2. Learned Public Prosecutor stated that no specific allegations for the petitioner seems to be in the complaint. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that though quotation was for Rs. 4,86,640/- but as per bill the cost of the vehicle is Rs. 4,77,870/- and from this amount deducting Rs. 8220/- as 50% of the insurance amount and then adding 50% of insurance and registration charges, comes to Rs.

5,11,041/- and charged is amount Rs. 5,21,262/- exercising deception. Considered arguments and perused the record. How the petitioner in person is responsible is not described in the complainant in any way. In statement of complainant himself, is that when R2 went to the company opposite party refused to make payment. Nothing more appears in the statement. Coming to the amounts, as per copies of the documents submitted with the complaint itself – M.V registration vehicle cost written is Rs. 4,77,870/- and amount Rs. 24,350/- as tax. According to invoice the amount is Rs. 4,32,473/- which after concession of Rs. 7,718/- (alleged to be 50% of insurance) comes to Rs. 4,24,773/- and after adding tax Rs. 53096/- the total amount is described as Rs. 4,77,870/-. Adding registration cost amount becomes about Rs. 5,02,000/- and then insurance cost about Rs. 18000 (50% already adjusted towards vehicle cost) comes to around Rs.

5,21,000/- which if not exactly, but very near to the payment made by R2. 50% of insurance amount appears to have been adjusted towards price of the vehicle and in any case, the order book signed by purchaser also mentions price of vehicle as Rs. 4,86,640/-. Looking to the above, the cognizance order cannot stand and this is to be quashed. Accordingly, the proceedings against the petitioner bearing Case No. 520/2006 before ACJM, Slumber are quashed. (C.M. TOTLA), J.