D.G. Deshpande, J.— Heard Senior Counsel Mr. P.R. Vakil for the petitioners and the Respondent No. 1, who also happens to be an advocate, in person.

2. Writ petition is filed for quashing the proceedings challenging the issuance of process initiated by Respondent No. 1 under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioners have directly come to this Court with-out approaching the Magistrate.

3. A complaint under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was filed by Respondent No. 1 on the following facts :-

Respondent No. 1 purchased a Maruti Car on 19-5-1999 from accused No. 1 who are authorised Dealers and Service Centre of Maruti Udyog Ltd. i.e., the petitioners. Respondent No. 1 has taken loan for purchasing the car. He was given warranty of one year along with the car. However, from 24-8-1999 the vehicle started giving trouble. Accele-rator was not working properly and respondent, who was driving the car at the time, was almost to hit a lamp post near his house as the vehicle’s speed accelerated suddenly. On that day he went to the office of accused No. 1 at Pune and brought to their notice the problem. A mechanic was sent and in turn, Respondent No. 1 was informed by accused No. 2 work shop that there was a manufacturing defect, but malfunctioning part was satisfactorily attended to. He was also assured that problem would not arise again. Respondent No. 1, therefore, took the delivery of the car.

4. However, on 29-8-2002 the accelerator paddle again got stuck while respondent No. 1 was pro-ceeding to Bombay. He telephoned the aforesaid work shop of the petitioners at Pune. The vehicle was collected from his residence on that evening. Respondent No. 1 lodged a complaint accused No. 3 and, thereafter correspondence ensued between the respondent No. 1 and the petitioners. The complaint contains that he has been cheated. The complainant also wrote to Suzuki Motor Corporation, collaborater of the Maruti Udyog Ltd. He was asked to contact the petitioners. According to the dealer the car was thereafter repaired and was made ready for delivery, but the complainant did not take delivery. According to the complainant since the manufacturing defect was to be rectified by the manufacturer and since he was cheated and since the problem that has cropped, he was likely to endanger his life, he filed complaint of cheating against the petitioners and others.

5. After verification of the com-plaint, the matter was sent to the police for investigation. After the police filed report, the Magistrate issued process, which is challenged in the present writ petition.

6. Mr. Vakil, Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, raised three contentions. Firstly, according to him, the petitioners had sold the car to the dealer accused No. 2, and thereafter, the petitioners have no concern with the car and, it was the sole responsibility of the dealer to take care of the defects in the car Secondly, according to Mr. Vakil, once the car was so sold, the petitioners have no con-cerned, and even for manufacturing defect, it was the responsibility of the dealer. Any warranty given by dealer was not binding on the petitioners. Further, according to him, the dealer was not an agent or representative of the petitioners, but was the purchaser of the cars as per the agreement between them. Mr. Vakil also conten-ded that there was no misrepresen-tation of any kind by and on behalf of the petitioners nor any inducement to the respondent No. 1 to purchase the

car. And lastly he contended that Managing Director, who is made accused and who is petitioner No. 2 in this case could not, in any way, be prosecuted for misrepresentation, firstly for the aforesaid reasons and secondly petitioner No. 2 Jagdish Khattar was not the Managing Direc-tor at the time of selling of the car.

7. Mr. Vakil, the Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, also pointed out that though in his com-plaint Respondent No. 1 has stated that he was induced