Criminal proceedings cannot be sustained against employees for civil disputes arising from product defects; allegations must demonstrate specific criminal intent to justify charges.

JUDGMENT :

Uday Kumar, J.

1. This revisional application, filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)—a provision corresponding to the erstwhile Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.)—has been preferred by employees of the OLA showroom in Siliguri Bishal Sarkar and Souvik Das (hereinafter referred to as "the petitioners"), who prayed for quashing of Siliguri Police Station Case No. 46/2025, dated January 20, 2025, under Sections 316(2), 318(2), and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2024, as it amount to the abuse of process of court, and no prima facie case is established against them. This case was registered following a complaint by Arun Kumar Bothra (the complainant), the purchaser of an OLA scooter.

2. Facing incessant mechanical and operation problems in newly purchased Ola S1X+ Scooter (registration no. WB74BR9464) on February 8, 2024, from an OLA showroom near Jhankar More, Burdwan Road, Siliguri, for Rs. 1,05,728/-, it the root cause of this dispute. The complainant, Arun Kumar Bothra, noticed continuous mechanical and operational issues with the scooter, including sudden power-offs, unexpected shifts to parking mode, and starting failures, from the very date of purchase, and he reported the same to the authorized service centre.

3. Despite repeated visits to the service centre for repairs, the problems persisted, and new issues consistently emerged. Initially, the showroom failed to respond adequately to his complaints. The complainant communicated with Mr. Souvik Das, the Service Manager, who assured him of service. However, on September 19, 2024, a new problem arose: the scooter's screen turned off. Consequently, on September 30, 2024, the scooter was returned for servicing to the OLA Electric Burdwan Road Showroom, Siliguri, where it remained in a dismantled state until October 20, 2024, without proper repair. Subsequently, Mr. Bishal Sarkar, a salesperson, advised the Complainant to take the scooter to the OLA Electric Bhanu Nagar Showroom-cum-Service Centre.

4. The complainant eventually received the scooter on November 3, 2024, but a new issue emerged in the scooter on the very next day, i.e., on November 4, 2024, necessitating another service drop-off. As of January 20, 2025, the scooter remained at the showroom. The complainant further alleged receiving a message on the OLA App stating, "Your S.I. Scooter is delivered to you after service completion," despite the scooter never having been delivered. He contended this constituted a "fake message with mala fide intention." When he approached Souvik Das, he allegedly received no satisfactory explanation.

5. Consequently, the complainant sought criminal proceedings against Bishal Sarkar and Souvik Das. He alleged dishonest misappropriation of his scooter, criminal breach of trust (claiming the scooter was entrusted for servicing), and fraudulent deception, which he asserted caused him wrongful loss, physical and mental harassment, and monetary loss. Specifically, he claimed that the authorized representatives knowingly sold a defective scooter and defrauded his interest. These allegations led to the registration of Siliguri P.S. Case No. 46/2025 under Sections 316(2), 318(2), and 318(4) of the BNS 2024, forming the subject matter of this revisional application (CRR).

6. Mr. Deborshi Dhar, Learned Advocate for the petitioners, submitted that his clients bear no responsibility for any mechanical defects in the scooter and never influenced the complainant's purchase. Therefore, he argued, no question of deceiving or misappropriating his property arises. Instead, the petitioners acted diligently, even informing the complainant to collect the scooter from another store (Mahananda Para) on November 15, 2024. Furthermore, he stated that after repairing of the scooter, the job card was closed at the complainant's verbal request, but the complainant failed to take delivery of his scooter despite several follow-up