RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Jaipur Bench
Wolfgang Hatz & Ors. Vs. State of Raj. & Anr. (Gupta, J.)
HON'BLE NISHA GUPTA, J.
Wolfgang Hatz & Ors.
Versus
State of Raj. & Anr.
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 418 of 2013, decided on 14.12.2013
¼d½ na-iz-la-] 1973] /kkjk 482 & U;k;ky; dh vUrfuZfgr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djuk & oSdfYid mipkj dh miyC/krk & D;k ;g na-iz-la- dh /kkjk 482 ds rgr ;kfpdk xzg.k djus ij otZu gS & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & oSdfYid mipkj dh miyC/krk lh/ks rkSj ij na-iz-la- dh /kkjk 482 ds rgr ;kfpdk xzg.k djus ij otZu ugha gS & /kkjk 482 na-iz-la- ds rgr 'kfDr;ks dk iz;ksx U;k;ky; dh izfØ;k dk nq:i;ksx jksdus ;k vU;Fkk U;k; ds mn~ns';ksa dks izkIr djus gsrq fd;k tk ldrk gSA ¼in la[;k 10½
(b) Penal Code, Secs. 382, 418, 420, 406, 120-B — Violation of contract — Filed complaint — Allegation that user ID issued to Volkswagen Group and petitioners Company started supplying vehicle to them — Trial Court dismissed — Revisional Court ordered for cognizance against the present petitioners in their absence — Held — No ingredients of cheating disclosed in the complaint or even in their statement — Violation of terms of agreement cannot be treated as cheating — F.I.R. lodged after delay of two years that too after loosing battle in civil cases — Impugned order quashed and set aside.
Petition allowed. (Paras 13, 14, 17, 21 to 24)
¼[k½ n.M lafgrk] /kkjk 382] 418] 420] 406] 120-[k & lafonk dk mYya?ku & ifjokn nk;j fd;k & ;g vfHkokd~ fd okWDlosxu leqg dks ^^;wtj vkbZ-Mh-** tkjh fd;k vkSj izkFkhZ dEiuh us mUgsa ;ku dh vkiwfrZ djuk vkjEHk fd;k & fopkj.k U;k;ky; us [kkfjt dh & iqujh{k.kh; U;k;ky; us orZeku izkFkhZx.k ds fo:) mudh vuqifLFkfr esa laKku dk vkns'k fn;k & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & ifjokn esa vkSj vius c;ku esa Hkh /kks[kk/kM+h ds fdlh ?kVd dk [kqyklk ugha fd;k & djkj ds fucU/kuksa ds mYya?ku dks /kks[kk/kM+h ugha ekuk tk ldrk & nks o"kZ ds foyEc ds ckn ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- ntZ djkbZ vkSj og Hkh nhokuh ekeyksa esa yM+kbZ gkjus ds ckn & vk{ksfir vkns'k vfHk[kf.Mr ,oa vikLr fd;kA ;kfpdk Lohdkj dhA ¼in la[;k 13] 14] 17] 21 ls 24½
2. The relevant facts of the case as contained in the petition are that a complaint has been filed by respondent No.2 alleging therein that petitioners entered into a Local Import Agreement on 8.6.2007 for supply of Porshe Cars, accessories and spare parts dealership in India. The said agreement was terminated vide notice dated 23.3.2011 on the basis of clause 13.2 of the agreement and it is also stated in the complaint that present petitioners has appointed a local dealer in violation of terms of agreement and caused wrongful loss to the respondent. The court below has declined to proceed on the complaint and it was dismissed under Section 204 Cr.P.C., against which a revision petition was filed and revisional court was of the opinion that prima facie there is evidence to take cognizance against the present petitioners on which the court below has took cognizance against the present petitioners, hence this petition.
3. The contention of the present petitioners is that this is the admitted case of the parties that agreement was entered between the parties on 8.6.2007 and it was terminated vide notice dated 1.3.2011 as per clause 13.2 of the agreement after the 12 months of service of notice, the termination notice was received by respondent No.2 on 7.3.2011 and it was accepted by respondent No.2 vide two e-mails dated 8.3.2011. The said termination was to be effective from 28.2.2012 but respondent No.2 requested that the termination period be extended upto 31.3.2012 to coincide it with the financial year closing of respondent No.2 which was agreed by the petitioner company and thereafter, the Volkswagen Group Sales India Ltd. has been made the exclusive local importer of the company with effect from 1.4.2012. The respondent then filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Act of 1996) which was later on withdrawn as the court below has declined to give any interim relief to him. After withdrawing the aforesaid petition, respondent No.2 again filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act of 1996 for ex parte interim injunction without disclosing the fact that earlier one application under Section 9 of the Act of 1996 has been withdrawn by him. The court below has dismissed the application filed by respondent No.2, SB Civil Misc. Appeal has been filed before this Court which was also dismissed after that one suit through other company named M/s Shreyans Pvt. Ltd. has been filed against petitioner No. 2, 3 and Volkswagen Group Sales India Ltd. which was also dismissed under O.7 R.11 CPC and appeal has also been dismissed thereafter with malice and mala fide intention, criminal complaint has been filed and the court below has declined to issue process holding that the dispute was primarily of civil nature but the revisional court has ordered for taking cognizance.
4. The contention of the present petitioners is that respondent has deliberately concealed the material facts from the trial Court that after completing the innings of civil litigation, this complaint has been filed just to pressurize the present petitioners and to settle their scores, the only allegation against the petitioners is that during the subsistence of agreement, they have appointed local importer but the petitioners has not supplied any vehicles, accessories or spare parts to Volkswagen Group Sales India Ltd. The Volkswagen Group Sales India Ltd. has been app
T.C. Mathai & Anr. vs. District & Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram
S. Pratap Singh vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1964 SC 72) 8
Hari Shankar Rastogi vs. Girdhari Sharma & Anr. ((1978) 2 SCC 165) 8
Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani & Anr. vs. Indusind Bank Ltd. & Anr. ((2005) 2 SCC 217) 8
Mankaur (dead) by LRs vs. Hartar Singh Sangha ((2010) 10 SCC 512) 8
Hamida vs. Rashid @ Rasheed & Ors. ((2008) 1 SCC 474) 9
Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. vs. State of Uttarnchal & Ors. ((2007) 12 SCC 1)
State of Karnataka vs. Muniswamy & Ors. ((1977) 2 SCC 699) 9
Punjab State Warehousing Corporation
Pepsi Food Ltd. & Anr. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors. ((1998) 5 SCC 749) 9
Harshendra Kumar D. vs. Rebatilata Koley ((2011) 3 SCC 351 = 2011(2) RLW 1724 (SC)) 11
K. Ashoka vs. N.L. Chandrashekar & Anr. ((2009) 5 SCC 199) 15
Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Ravi Shankar Srivastava
Meghmala vs. G. Narshimha Reddy ((2010) 8 SCC 383) 15
Lee Kun Hee, President, Samsung Corporation
Iridium India Telecom Ltd. vs. Motorola Incorporated & Ors. ((2011) 1 SCC 74) 16
Trisuns Chemical Industry vs. Rajesh Agarwal & Ors. ((1999) 8 SCC 686) 16
Kamla Devi Agarwal vs. State of W.B. & Ors. ((2002) 1 SCC 555) 16
M. Krishnan vs. Vijay Singh & Anr. ((2001) 8 SCC 645) 16
M.N. Ohja & Ors. vs. Alok Kumar Srivastava ((2009) 9 SCC 682) 16
Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia vs. State of Punjab ((2009) 7 SCC 712) 16
Thermax Ltd. vs. K.M. Johny ((2012) 13 SCC 412) 16
Muralilal Gupta vs. Gopi Singh ((2005) 13 SCC 699) 16
Ram Biraji Devi & Anr. vs. Umesh Kumar Singh & Anr. ((2006) 6 SCC 669) 16
Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Anr. ((2005) 10 SCC 336) 18
Devendra & Ors. vs. State of U.P. ((2009) 7 SCC 495) 18
Suneet Gupta vs. Anil Triloknath Sharma ((2008) 11 SCC 670) 20
Joseph Salvaraj vs. State of Gujarat ((2011) 7 SCC 59) 21
Dr. Sharada Prasad vs. State of Bihar ((1977) 1 SCC 505) 21
Sharon Michael & ors. vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. ((2009) 3 SCC 375) 22
Ashok Chaturvedi & ors. vs. Shitul H. Chanchani & Anr. ((1998) 7 SCC 698) 22
Popular Muthiah vs. State ((2006) 7 SCC 296) 22
Gorgie Pentaiah vs. State of A.P. ((2008) 12 SCC 531) 22
Manhbaribhai vs. Shailesh Bhai ((2012) 10 SCC 517) 22
C.S. Rowjee vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1964 SC 962) 23
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.