The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of misrepresentation and wrongful loss and gain under Section 420 IPC, emphasizing the role of credibility in determining misrepresentation.

Mukta Gupta, J.

1. By the present petitions the Petitioners Ashok Sachdev and Praveen Sahni in CRL.M.C. 927/2011 and Shweta Khanna in CRL.M.C. 3691/2011 seek quashing of criminal complaint bearing No. 137/1/10 titled as G.S. Chauhan Vs. Ashok Sachdev & Ors.” pending in the Court of Shri Rajinder Singh, Metropolitan Magistrate-04, Saket Courts, New Delhi and the order dated 14th January, 2011 summoning the Petitioners for offence under Section 420 IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioners contend that at best the allegations in the complaint are of manufacturing defect, however by the order of summoning the manufacturer i.e. accused No.4 Ms. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Private Limited has been dropped and the Petitioners herein who were only dealers, G.M. (Sales) and sales representative respectively have been summoned. The vehicle i.e. Toyota Innova, multi-utility vehicle was purchased by the Respondent from the company on 23rd May, 2007. However the first complaint was lodged in the month of May, 2008 i.e. after 12 months of the date of purchase of the vehicle. The complaint of the Respondent was that the bumpers and the fenders of the vehicle were dented, repaired and repainted. The Petitioners were not liable for any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The dispute is purely commercial in nature and no criminal liability can be fastened against the Petitioners. On a perusal of the complaint and the statement of the Respondent, no criminal offence under Section 420 IPC is made out against the Petitioners. The allegations in the complaint are contrary to the petition filed before the Consumer forum wherein it is alleged that the company sold an old car. Reliance in this regard is placed on B. Suresh Yadav Vs. Sharifa Bee & Anr. (2009) 1 SCC (Crl) 282 to contend that if contrary pleas are taken in the criminal and civil proceedings, then the same assumes importance. Relying upon Ford India Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Sunbeam Ancilliary P. Ltd. 152 (2008) DLT 50 it is contended that the dispute is entirely civil in nature and hence no criminal liability can be fastened.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Shweta Khanna in addition contends that the only role assigned to the Petitioner Shweta Khanna is that she informed that a red colour vehicle was available at the Moti Nagar showroom. There is no other allegation. Reliance is placed on M/s. Thermax Ltd. and Ors. Vs. K.M. Johny and Ors. 2012 Crl.L.J. 438.

4. Learned counsel for the Respondent on the other hand contends that the Petitioners are relying upon the service history of the vehicle placed on record by the Respondent which gives a totally different version. Since the sales representative Shweta Khanna went out of the way to inform the complainant about the availability of one car of limited addition being available at Moti Nagar, the misrepresentation is evident. The Petitioners sold a damaged car as a brand new edition. At this stage this Court has only to see prima facie evidence. Learned Trial Court has summoned the Petitioners by a well-reasoned order which does not call for interference. The Petitioners are liable to be tried for the offences and the veracity of the complaint will be tested during trial when the technicians will be called for and the Court will evaluate the evidence placed on record. In the letter written by the Petitioner Praveen Sahni to the Respondent, there is an implied admission as correction of paint mis-match was offered to the complainant/Respondent. Since the case does not fall in any of the parameters laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. 1992 Supp (1) SC 335, no case for quashing of the complaint or the summoning order is made out.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Briefly the facts giving rise to filing of the present petition are that the Respondent G.S. Chauhan filed the abovementioned complaint along with an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the Learned Metropoli