CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION v. Vijaynath Jha

raised the purported steering issue during the first service when the dealer's service centre dismissed the opposite party's concern, attributing the non-returnability of the steering to new technology and labelling it as the new normal. Allegedly, no cogent action was taken by the petitioners or by the dealership, although the opposite party had repeatedly raised concerns with the dealership officials. 3 c. An inspection was caused upon receipt of the complaint, after which the Regional Service Manager of the petitioners replied via an email that the vehicle of the opposite party was as per specification, but the return assist feature in the power steering was not available in the said model of the car. It is essentially upon these facts that the opposite party felt that the car suffered an inherent manufacturing defect, and that he has been defrauded and deceived by the petitioners and the dealer, through their misleading advertisement, that the car has a power steering function, leading to suppression of material facts, for which the opposite party has instituted the complaint case against the petitioners. d. The petitioners are aggrieved that the Learned Magistrate took cognizance against them and further issued summons, inter alia, upon them, without applying judicious mind and without considering that no ingredient of the offence as alleged at all had been made out against the petitioners in the complaint filed by the opposite party. Hence, this Criminal Revisional application.

3. Learned Sr. counsel, Mr. Banerjee, along with other counsels, appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the case filed by the opposite party is absolutely false, fabricated, and concocted with malicious intention. He purchased the car on 11th August, 2022. 4 After receiving delivery on 29th September, 2022, the Opposite Party drove the car for 3 months and for more than 5000 Kms, after which he noticed that the power steering did not automatically return to its central position, which was absurd since such a system is not available in the said car.

4. It was further submitted that upon receiving the complaint during the first servicing, the dealer’s service centre considered the contention of the opposite party and indicated that the steering available in the Car is normal and functional without any disturbance. An inspection was conducted again and subsequently, the Regional Service Manager of the petitioner no. 1/Company replied via an email dated 09.09.2023 indicating that the vehicle purchased by the opposite party was as per specification. The return assist feature in the power steering was not available in the said model ‘Celerio ZXi MT’.

5. The car was normally available for three free services, and during such service on three occasions, i.e., on 28.10.2022, 20.12.2022 and

05.09.2023, no abnormality was noticed. The Regional Service Manager of the petitioner No. 1 assured and entrusted the opposite party to drive the vehicle with confidence as no problem was found in the steering of the car. In reply, the opposite party, vide email dated

09.09.2023 at 07.09 PM, acknowledged the email of the Regional Service Manager and declared that he is satisfied with the 5 explanation and further endorsed the vehicle as overall, a “very good and smooth drive car”.

6. It was further contended that despite satisfaction, the opposite party filed a complaint before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, who took cognizance of the said complaint without applying his judicious mind and transferred the case before the Learned 19th Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta for enquiry and disposal. In turn, summons was issued against the petitioners.

7. It was further contended that even if there was a manufacturing defect, the case could be at best civil in nature and should not have been painted in a criminal colour. The opposite party has already filed a consumer case bearing No. CC/53/2024 in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata-1 (North). However, the opposite party has further tried to cloak a civil dispute in criminality and used it as a pressure tactic or harassment tool to force the petitioners, for his illegal gain, by way of compensation.

8. It was further submitted that Petitioner No. 1, the company, having its registered office at New Delhi, and Petitioner No. 2, the CEO of the company, have no role to play in the dealing or selling the car to the opposite party, as the car was purchased from the dealer, namely, Dewars Garage Limited at Kolkata. 6

9. The petitioners have an exquisite reputation for delivering quality cars in the international market for decades, and they have always followed the Government-set standards strictly while manufacturing any vehicle. The quality of goods or services is directly proportional to their price. The whole case is based on the allegation that the auto-returnability feature was not available in the power steering of the de facto complainant’s car. It was clearly explained to him on several occasions that power steering is available in two distinct variants, one with the auto-returnability feature and one without it, and that the vehicle purchased by the opposite party had power steering without the auto-returnability feature.

10. The opposite party misinterpreted the fact that power steering includes an auto-returnability feature, although power steering has two different and independent features. After driving the car for about 5000 Kms, the officials and technicians personally, and also via email, explained to the opposite party about the two types of power steering and, in reply, he admitted everything after being satisfied. As the Opposite Party purchased the car based on the description which matches the brochure, the petitioners cannot be held liable. The allegation of the opposite party is confined to the defect in the power steering of the car delivered to him, i.e., it lacked the auto- returnability feature. Even if, for the sake of argument, it is assumed 7 that the opposite party’s case is the supply of a defective car/goods, the remedy lies under the civil side and, at best, relief is available under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The opposite party has filed another case as aforesaid before the Consumer Forum. Therefore, this present case is baseless and filed only for illegal gain and to malign the reputation of the petitioners; therefore, if such proceeding is allowed to be continued against the present petitioners, without their involvement, it would be an absolute abuse of process of law and the same is liable to be quashed.

11. Finally, it was submitted that the learned Magistrate did not follow the Mandatory enquiry under Section 202(1) of the Cr.P.C. before issuing summons to the petitioners as both the petitioners’ office and residential address fall outside the jurisdiction of the learned Court; as such, only non-compliance of the mandatory provision would be the additional ground for quashing of the instant proceeding.

12. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has relied upon the following decisions to support his contention that the allegation against the petitioners is out and out false and no specific role is attributed against the petitioners for commission of offence as alleged. The whole case is based on consumer disputes, allegedly physical flaws, poor quality, or that it does not work as promised. 8 Therefore, the case may be quashed on the basis of observations made by the Hon’ble Courts in view of the following judgments: - i) Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation1; ii) Anil Mahajan Vs. Bhor Industries Ltd. And Another2; iii) Dr Sharma’s Nursing Home Vs. Delhi Admn. And Others3; iv) Gaurav Bajaj Vs. State Of West Bengal And Anr.4; v) Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited And Anr. Vs. Datar Switchgear Limited And Others5; vi) The Ceo, Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Ajay Mallick & Ors.6; vii) Maksud Saiyed Vs. State Of Gujarat & Ors.7; viii) Ford India Limited & Anr. Vs. Sunbeam Ancillary Private Limited8.

13. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party, on the other hand, strenuously opposed the prayer of the petitioners and further submitted that the accused No. 5, being the representative of the accused No. 3, dealer, i.e., Dewars Garage Limited, gave a long,