The court emphasized the need to distinguish between civil and criminal disputes and upheld the principle that complaints arising out of breach of contractual obligations can be properly agitated in a civil court.

Headnote:
Criminal Complaint - Quashing of Complaint - S.420 IPC, S.34 IPC - R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (AIR. 1960 S. C. 866) - K. S. Javari v. Bhagwat Parshad (AIR. 1950 East Punjab 155) - Esso Standard v. Udharam (1971) 75 Bombay Law Reporter 417 - Ta co Supermarkets Ltd, v. Nattrass ((1971) 2 All. E R.127) - Hari Prasad Chamaria v. Bishun Kumar Surekha (1973 (2) S.C.C. 823)
Fact of the Case:

The complainant booked a new car and discovered several defects after taking delivery. A complaint was filed under S.420 of the Indian Penal Code read with S.34 I.P.C. against the accused. The accused filed an application under S.482 Cr. P. C. to quash the complaint.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that an offence under S.420 read with S.34 IPC. cannot be made out as against the petitioners even if the allegations in the complaint are taken at their face value. The court also expressed concern about the quality of cars supplied by Hindustan Motors.
Issues: Whether the allegations in the complaint constitute an offence against the accused. Whether rushing to criminal courts for civil disputes is appropriate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles laid down in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab and other cases to determine the exercise of jurisdiction under S.482 Cr. P. C. The court also considered the practice of rushing to criminal courts for expeditious settlement of disputes which should properly be decided by Civil Courts.
Final Decision: The court allowed the plea of the petitioners and quashed the complaint as against them.

Judgment :-

1. Out of the four accused in C. C. No. 274 of 1974 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Kottayam, the 1st and 2nd accused have filed this petition. The 1st petitioner is the 1st accused and the 2nd petitioner is the 2nd accused. The first petitioner is described as the president of the Hindustan Motors Ltd., Hind Motor, Hooghly, West Bengal, and the 2nd petitioner is described as Mr. S. K. Datta, Service Co-ordination Manager, Hindustan Motors Ltd., Hind Motor, Hooghly, West Bengal (Project Service Division). The 3rd and 4th accused are respectively, M/s. Marikkar (Motors) Ltd, Trivandrum and Mr. Ummer, Manager, M/s. Marikkar (Motors) Ltd., Kottayam. The complainant in the criminal case is one K. M. Joseph of Kanjirappally.

2. The averments in the complaint against the four accused persons are, in short, as follows. The complainant booked with the branch office of M/s. Marikkar (Motors) Ltd., Kottayam on 3-111973, for the purchase of a new Ambassador car for his daughter. Necessary earnest money of Rs. 4000/-was deposited. The complainant received the intimation that the car was ready for delivery and he paid Rs. 34,479.00 on 29 81974 and the car was registered as K.L.O.2847. The complainant took delivery of the car on 5--91974. After taking delivery of the car, the complainant discovered several defects to the car. There was profuse smoke in the exhaust and heavy oil consumption. The car was taken back to the 4th accused on 7-9-1974. The piston rings were changed and the car was given back to the complainant on 119 1974. Even after the repairs, the car was found to be unsatisfactory in its working. The complainant found that the bores were sleeved, which allegation was denied by the 4th accused. The defects with the car are shown in Para.6 of the complaint as follows:

1. Abnormal sound from the engine and high oil consumption.

2. Excessive rear axil play and 'cling' sound from rear axle.

3. Unsteadiness of the vehicle on the road.

4. Tappets making huge noise.

5. Difficulty to operate gears, especially 2nd gear.

6. 'Hum' noise arising from water pump/ generator.

7. Clutch is very hard and also juddering, while the vehicle moves out.

8. Steering rattling.

9. Ineffective brakes and front wheel wobbling.

10. Inadequate weldings to many joints thereby car rattles too much on road".

3. On these materials a complaint was filed under S.420 of the Indian Penal Code read with S.34 I.P.C. against the four accused. The present application is filed under S.482 Cr. P. C. by the two petitioners before me, to call for the papers from the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court in C. C. No. 224 of 1974 and to quash the complaint.

4. It is stated in the petition that the first petitioner is manufacturing cars under licence issued by the Government of India. The 3rd accused in the case is a dealer in Kerala. The 2nd petitioner is the Service Co-ordination Manager. The petitioners deny that any false representation was made by them and that the complainant was induced to part with money on such representation. They deny that they were aware that the car sold by them would be defective even at the time of booking the car. They also deny that they have committed any offence under S.420 I.P.C.

5. Counsel for the petitioners contended that the averments in the complaint cannot constitute an offence against them. The first petitioner is a company and the 2nd petitioner is the Service Co-ordination Manager. Neither of them can be held criminally liable.

6. The well-known case regarding exercise of jurisdiction under S.561A corresponding to S.482 of the new Code is reported in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (AIR. 1960 S. C. 866). In the said decision, the categories of cases, where jurisdiction under this section can and should be exercised have been detailed. The categories are the following:

"(i) Where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the criminal proceeding in respect of th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1975 Supreme(Ker) 222

The court emphasized the need to distinguish between civil and criminal disputes and upheld the principle that complaints arising out of breach of contractual obligations can be properly agitated in a civil court.

Cases Referred (1)